Previously, the Nevada Supreme Court had denied the league’s earlier appeal of its ruling Aug. 11 that Gruden can proceed with his lawsuit and not go through the league for arbitration.

Gruden’s legal team, however, remains undeterred. In a statement released through his attorney, Adam Hosmer-Henner, they reaffirmed their intention to continue fighting the case in state court. “Coach Gruden has always sought a fair hearing before a Nevada jury,” the statement said. “We look forward to presenting the evidence that the NFL selectively leaked emails to force his resignation and damage his reputation.”

For legal experts, the case is a fascinating collision between privacy, power, and public image. “This isn’t just about Jon Gruden,” said University of Nevada law professor Marianne Wood. “It’s about how much control the NFL exerts over its internal investigations and the narratives that follow. If Gruden can prove intent behind the leak, it could set a precedent that makes future league probes far more transparent.”

The league, meanwhile, has a strong incentive to shut the door on the case before discovery—when both sides would gain access to internal communications and records—moves forward. Such a phase could reveal more about how the NFL managed the Washington Commanders’ investigation and the handling of Gruden’s emails, potentially reopening wounds the league has tried to heal.

Beyond the courtroom, public opinion remains divided. Some fans view Gruden’s lawsuit as an attempt to deflect responsibility for his own words. Others see him as a scapegoat—an example of selective justice in a system that often shields ownership and top executives from equal scrutiny. “If the league leaked his emails to protect others, that’s a huge problem,” one longtime fan wrote on Reddit. “Either everyone’s accountable, or no one is.”

Inside league circles, the case has also sparked quiet unease. Several team officials, speaking anonymously to The Athletic, suggested that the NFL’s fear of discovery is genuine. “If this goes to trial,” one executive said, “we could see more internal communications come to light than the league ever wanted.”

At the center of it all is Gruden himself—a coach once celebrated for his fiery personality and Super Bowl success with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, now largely absent from the football landscape. Since his resignation, Gruden has kept a low profile, occasionally surfacing at college practices or youth football events. Yet by pursuing the lawsuit, he’s made clear his desire not just for compensation, but vindication.

As of now, the Nevada state court is reviewing the NFL’s motion to dismiss, with a hearing expected later this year. If the motion is denied, the case would move into discovery—potentially dragging the league into months, if not years, of uncomfortable revelations. If granted, it could mark the end of Gruden’s legal challenge, leaving the 60-year-old coach with limited recourse.

The league’s attorneys said in the motion: “Gruden does not and cannot dispute that he wrote the emails that led to his resignation. He does not and cannot dispute that he freely sent those emails to multiple parties. He does not and cannot claim that the emails were misleadingly edited or altered in any way, let alone by the NFL Parties, or that the views espoused in them were not in fact expressed by him. Instead, Gruden has concocted a fictional story that attempts to paint himself as the victim of his own conduct.”

The motion to dismiss cites Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects against lawsuits intended to silence those exercising their First Amendment rights.

“Gruden’s false claims are all premised on quintessential First Amendment activity: The NFL Parties’ alleged communication of unaltered emails authored by Gruden, a public figure, to the national media. And because those claims have no basis in law or fact, the complaint cannot survive under the anti-SLAPP statute,” NFL attorneys said.

In 2022, the NFL appealed to Nevada’s high court after a judge in Las Vegas rejected league bids to dismiss Gruden’s claim outright or to order out-of-court talks through an arbitration process that could be overseen by Goodell.

The high court, in a 5-2 ruling, said that “the arbitration clause in the NFL Constitution is unconscionable and does not apply to Gruden as a former employee.”

Gruden was an on-air analyst for ESPN from 2011 to 2018 when the emails were sent.

He was the Raiders’ coach when the team moved in 2020 to Las Vegas from Oakland, California. He’s seeking monetary damages, saying that the selective disclosure of the emails and their publication by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times ruined his career and endorsement contracts.

Gruden coached the Raiders in Oakland from 1998 to 2001, then led the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for seven years, winning a Super Bowl title in 2003. After his stint at ESPN, he was hired by the Raiders in 2018.

He consulted for the New Orleans Saints in 2023. He is now a part owner and consultant for the Nashville Kats of the Arena Football One league.