Josh Jacobs Resolved His Criminal Case. The NFL Still Gets Its Own Say.

Rapid Response / Legal Alert | September 12, 2026

Josh Jacobs walked out of a Wisconsin courtroom on September 10 with considerably more certainty about his criminal case. His football status remained exactly where it was.

The Green Bay Packers running back pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery and criminal damage to property stemming from a May incident. He was convicted on the battery count and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine plus costs. Proceedings on the property-damage count were deferred for 12 months and can be dismissed if he satisfies conditions that include counseling, supervision, no contact with the alleged victim, avoiding further criminal conduct, and restitution.

The NFL's response was immediate but uneventful: nothing changed. Jacobs remains on the Commissioner’s Exempt List while the league reviews the matter under its Personal Conduct Policy. He cannot practice or play, although he continues to be paid and may participate in certain non-football activities with the Packers' permission.

That can seem strange. If the court case is resolved, what exactly is left for the NFL to decide?

Quite a lot.

The simplest way to understand it is this:

A criminal court decides whether the government may punish someone under criminal law. The NFL decides whether a player may work in the NFL under rules governing NFL employment. Those are different questions, applying different rules, through different processes.

Jacobs's case is an unusually good example of how those systems overlap—and why one does not control the other.

The NFL does not need a criminal conviction to discipline a player.

Its current Personal Conduct Policy says so explicitly: avoiding a guilty verdict is not enough, and a player may violate the policy even when conduct never results in a criminal conviction. The policy prohibits, among other things, physical violence, assault or battery, dating and domestic violence, and conduct that threatens another person's safety or undermines the integrity of the NFL.

For Jacobs, there is an additional wrinkle. The policy expressly defines a “disposition of a criminal proceeding” to include a guilty adjudication, a no-contest plea, diversion, deferred adjudication, conditional dismissal, and several similar resolutions. A player with such a disposition is subject to the policy's disciplinary process.

So Jacobs's no-contest plea did not eliminate the NFL's disciplinary authority.

It did nearly the opposite: it moved the dispute from “what happened?” toward “what NFL consequence should follow?”

Because this is not a second criminal prosecution.

The familiar constitutional protection against double jeopardy prevents the government from repeatedly prosecuting someone for the same criminal offense in circumstances where the Double Jeopardy Clause applies. It does not ordinarily prevent a private employer or collectively governed sports league from imposing employment consequences for the same underlying conduct.

The NFL's authority comes from an entirely different source: the league's Personal Conduct Policy, the NFL–NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement, the player-employment relationship, and related league rules.

Think of an ordinary workplace. An employee could be arrested for conduct that also violates the employer's workplace rules. A prosecutor might dismiss the case. The employer could still investigate and, depending on its policies and the evidence, impose discipline.

Professional football is a much more elaborate version of the same basic idea.

The major difference is that NFL players are unionized. The league therefore does not simply invent the disciplinary procedure from scratch each time. The NFL and NFL Players Association have negotiated important parts of that system through collective bargaining. Article 46 of the current CBA places Personal Conduct Policy cases before a jointly selected Disciplinary Officer and specifies how discipline and appeals are handled.

That is why calling league discipline “the NFL punishing someone twice” misses the point. The criminal system and the NFL system derive authority from different places and serve different purposes.

More than many people realize.

The Personal Conduct Policy expressly includes a no-contest plea within its definition of a criminal disposition. It also says that where a criminal disposition has occurred, the underlying disposition cannot be relitigated during the NFL disciplinary hearing; the court's judgment and factual findings are binding, although the player may offer facts relevant to mitigation.

That is important.

Jacobs's NFL proceeding is therefore not simply a miniature criminal trial where the league must start from zero and prove the state's case again.

The practical issue becomes the appropriate league discipline.

That can involve facts and considerations the criminal court did not treat the same way because the NFL is applying its own policy rather than Wisconsin criminal sentencing law.

The NFL could still act.

This is one of the most common misconceptions about professional-sports discipline.

Under the Personal Conduct Policy, a player who is never charged—or who is charged but not convicted—can still be found to have violated league rules if the league's investigation produces credible evidence of prohibited conduct.

So these scenarios are legally different but can all lead to NFL discipline:

That does not mean every allegation produces punishment. The NFL must still operate under its policy and disciplinary framework, and recent cases demonstrate that league investigations can also end without discipline when the available evidence is insufficient.

The point is narrower: the prosecutor does not possess a veto over NFL discipline.

Criminal punishment is among the government's most serious exercises of power. Prosecutors generally must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The NFL is conducting a private employment and disciplinary proceeding.

Its policy instead speaks in terms of whether credible evidence establishes prohibited conduct, while Article 46 places the burden on the NFL to establish a Personal Conduct Policy violation before the Disciplinary Officer.

That difference explains why “he wasn't convicted” is not necessarily the end of the conversation.

Different systems can examine the same event and legitimately reach different conclusions because they are answering different questions under different standards.

The name makes it sound more mysterious than it is.

For Personal Conduct Policy purposes, the Commissioner’s Exempt List is essentially paid administrative leave.

The policy permits the Commissioner to place a player on the list in specified circumstances involving formal charges or alleged violent conduct while the league investigates. Importantly, placement is not a determination of guilt or innocence.

While exempt, a player generally:

That is Jacobs's current status.

And there is one particularly important rule as the regular season begins: regular-season or postseason games missed while a player is on the Exempt List are credited against any suspension ultimately imposed. If that happens, the player must return the salary attributable to the credited games because suspensions are unpaid.

So the exempt list is not technically a suspension—but its competitive effect can look very similar.

No.

The league often coordinates its timing with law enforcement so it does not interfere with a criminal investigation, but its authority is independent.

In fact, the NFL's policy says players must cooperate with league investigations and specifically notes that the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination does not apply to the NFL's private workplace investigation in the same manner it applies to government interrogation. A player's refusal to cooperate can itself become grounds for discipline.

That distinction is easy to miss.

A player may have a constitutional right not to incriminate himself to the government. That does not necessarily give him a contractual right to refuse cooperation with his employer or league without employment consequences.

Those competing pressures are one reason criminal cases can complicate league investigations.

Under the present CBA and Personal Conduct Policy, the simplified process looks like this:

1. The NFL investigates. The league may consider law-enforcement information, court records, documents, physical evidence, interviews, and its own independent investigation. Players have cooperation obligations.

2. The player receives the investigative materials. Through the NFLPA, a player facing discipline is entitled to the league's investigative report and referenced evidentiary materials and can respond.

3. A jointly selected Disciplinary Officer decides the initial Personal Conduct Policy case. Article 46 assigns that officer responsibility for factual findings and determining discipline. The NFL bears the burden of establishing the violation.

4. Either side can appeal the discipline. The player through the NFLPA—or the league through the Management Council—can appeal to the Commissioner or his designee. The appeal generally concerns the level of discipline and is based on the existing record. The Commissioner or designee can overturn, reduce, modify, or increase the discipline.

That last point matters: an appeal is not automatically a one-way opportunity for the player to obtain a reduction.

Not necessarily—but the six-game rule matters.

The Personal Conduct Policy establishes a six-game baseline suspension for a first violation involving:

The baseline may be adjusted upward or downward based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Mitigating factors expressly identified by the policy include prompt acceptance of responsibility, cooperation with the league, voluntary engagement with counseling or other clinical resources, compliance with recommended treatment, and voluntary restitution. Aggravating factors can include prior misconduct, weapons, choking, repeated striking, particularly vulnerable victims, or conduct in the presence of a child.

Jacobs's attorneys say he has already begun counseling, and he stated in court that he understood the seriousness of the situation and accepted responsibility. Those facts could be relevant to mitigation.

But predicting an exact suspension now would be premature.

The key issue will be how the league classifies the violation under its policy. The criminal charge's label does not necessarily control the NFL's characterization. The complainant has been publicly identified as Jacobs's girlfriend; if the NFL treats the conduct as “dating violence” under its policy, the six-game baseline becomes directly relevant.

That baseline is exactly what it says: a starting point, not necessarily the final number.

“No conviction means no suspension.” Wrong. The Personal Conduct Policy expressly permits discipline without a conviction.

“A no-contest plea means the NFL cannot treat it as a resolution.” Wrong. The policy expressly includes a no-contest plea within its definition of a criminal disposition.

“The Commissioner’s Exempt List is a suspension.” Not exactly. It is paid administrative leave. But because the player cannot practice or play, the competitive consequences can resemble a suspension.

“If a player misses games on the exempt list and is later suspended, he serves both.” Generally not. Regular- and postseason games missed while exempt are credited toward a later suspension under the CBA, subject to the corresponding salary adjustment.

“The criminal court decides whether the NFL can punish the player.” It does not. Criminal law and NFL discipline are separate systems.

“The NFL can do literally anything it wants.” Also wrong. Its authority is substantial, but player discipline operates within a collectively bargained framework containing notice, evidentiary, hearing, and appeal procedures. Federal courts, however, generally give considerable deference to labor-arbitration systems the parties themselves negotiated.

The distinction matters every time a professional athlete becomes involved in an off-field incident.

For players, the criminal lawyer's job and the labor lawyer's job may overlap, but they are not identical. Resolving the criminal case can have direct consequences under a league disciplinary policy.

For teams, uncertainty itself carries a cost. Green Bay built its initial 53-man roster with Jacobs on the exempt list, leaving MarShawn Lloyd, Chris Brooks, and Kaleb Johnson as its active running backs.

For agents, the consequences can extend beyond league discipline to guarantees, endorsements, sponsor relationships, and contractual morality clauses.

For leagues, the challenge is consistency. A system that claims independence from criminal outcomes must develop its own reliable method of investigating facts and calibrating punishment.

And for fans, the crucial lesson is simply that the scoreboard of the criminal case does not tell you what will happen next.

As of September 12, the NFL says Jacobs remains under review and has provided no timetable for completing its process. He remains on the Commissioner’s Exempt List.

The next meaningful developments are likely to be:

The timing matters because Green Bay opens its regular season against Minnesota on September 13. Unlike preseason time spent on the exempt list, regular-season games missed while exempt can count toward a later suspension.

The Josh Jacobs situation becomes much easier to understand once the two systems are separated.

The criminal court determines criminal consequences. The NFL determines football-employment consequences.

A no-contest plea counts as a criminal disposition under the NFL's own policy. A conviction is not required for league discipline. The Commissioner’s Exempt List is paid administrative leave, not a final suspension. Personal Conduct Policy discipline is initially handled by a jointly selected Disciplinary Officer under the CBA, with an appeal available to the Commissioner or his designee. And if the NFL ultimately classifies conduct as domestic or dating violence, the policy provides a six-game baseline that can move depending on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The broader principle is the one worth remembering:

Finishing the court case does not finish the employment case. In professional sports, the final whistle in one legal system can simply start the clock in another.

Can the NFL suspend a player if prosecutors drop every charge?
Yes. The policy allows discipline where credible evidence establishes prohibited conduct even without a criminal conviction.

Can the NFL discipline a player who is acquitted?
Potentially. An acquittal establishes that the government did not prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not automatically resolve the league's separate inquiry under its own rules and evidentiary framework.

Does time on the Commissioner’s Exempt List count toward a later suspension?
Regular-season and postseason games missed while exempt are credited against a later Personal Conduct Policy suspension, with salary consequences for credited games.

Who makes the first disciplinary decision?
For player Personal Conduct Policy cases under the current CBA, a Disciplinary Officer jointly selected by the NFL and NFLPA makes the initial determination.

Can the Commissioner increase a suspension on appeal?
Yes. Under the Personal Conduct Policy, the Commissioner or his designee may affirm, reduce, modify, overturn, or increase the discipline.