NEW YORK - Ezekiel Elliott and the NFL Players Association didn't just lose Monday in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. They got blown out.

Here's a breakdown of Judge Katherine Polk Failla's reasoning for denying Elliott a preliminary injunction that would keep him on the field for the Cowboys.

In her ruling issued late Monday after a two-hour hearing in the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Failla cited the "Deflategate" case the NFL eventually won on appeal involving New England quarterback Tom Brady. He won in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Failla's court.

The Court emphasized the "narrowly circumscribed and highly deferential" function that courts play in reviewing labor arbitration awards, Failla included, and added: "Viewed through this lens, the NFLPA's burden in seeking a preliminary injunction in this case is weighty."

Elliott had argued that the NFL's arbitration process that upheld his six-game suspension by the NFL was fundamentally unfair. The NFL found Elliott used physical force against a former girlfriend on three occasions; he has denied the findings.

To earn an injunction, the burden was on Elliott to establish:

• irreparable harm


• either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits


• plus a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in the favor of Elliott and


• that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest

Failla ruled against Elliott on all the tenets.

The judge noted that the Supreme Court has long held that arbitration awards cannot be vacated even if the arbitrator "committed serious errors."

Failla didn't buy that the NFL had to make lead investigator Kia Roberts' conclusion that the league lacked enough evidence for a suspension part of its investigatory report. She believed Roberts' concerns about accuser Tiffany Thompson's credibility were communicated through the report Roberts co-authored and were communicated to Commissioner Roger Goodell.

The collective bargaining agreement provides no express authority to require Thompson or any non-NFL employee to testify, Failla wrote. She added: "And given Thompson's alleged abuse, coupled with the preexisting evidentiary record containing Thompson's statements and reports casting doubt on her credibility, the arbitrator could reasonably interpret the CBA to decline to compel testimony that would be emotionally difficult and likely duplicative."

The judge also ruled that the CBA doesn't require Goodell to testify about what he did or didn't know at the appeal hearing.

Failla disagreed with the union's claims that Elliott missing games and suffering damage to his reputation would cause him irreparable harm. She found it could ultimately be rectified through monetary awards if he ultimately wins the case in court. But she did find that the NFL stand to suffer harm if it couldn't impose discipline as allowed through the CBA.

"The pertinent terms of the CBA reside at the crossroads of the public's desire for the controlled carnage that is the sport of football and the NFL's ability to discipline players for off-the-field violence," Failla ruled. "With this in mind, the Court finds that the public interest weighs in favor of denying injunctive relief ...particularly where the relevant CBA implicates the ability of those in positions of authority to address an issue as dire as domestic violence."