Last Thursday, a federal appellate court issued another decision in NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's favor and against the NFL Players Association.
This time it was in Adrian Peterson's case. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Goodell was properly acting within his powers when he suspended the Minnesota Vikings running back, under the domestic violence policy set in August 2014, for conduct that occurred in May 2014.
Here's a Q&A breaking down what it all means:
What was the case about?
It starts with Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement, which allows the NFL to hold players accountable for "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football." This empowered Goodell to create the personal conduct policy.
In August 2014, following the Ray Rice controversy, Goodell circulated a memorandum to teams, outlining enhanced penalties for personal conduct policy violations involving domestic violence. These penalties increased the two-week unpaid suspension to six weeks for a first domestic violence offense.
This case was about whether Goodell could retroactively apply those enhanced penalties to Peterson for the domestic violence he committed four months prior to the rule's inception.
How did the events play out?
Two weeks after Goodell issued the memorandum, a Texas grand jury indicted Peterson on Sept. 11, 2014. The running back was charged with felony injury to a child, his then-4-year-old son, during a May incident.
In November, Peterson pleaded no contest to the lesser charge of misdemeanor reckless assault. Goodell suspended Peterson indefinitely and fined him six games' pay based on the protocol outlined in the August 2014 domestic violence memorandum.
An arbitrator Goodell chose affirmed Peterson's penalty, but a federal lower court reversed it. The NFL appealed that decision to a higher court.
What did the appellate court decide?
A three-judge panel on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the arbitrator, holding that Goodell could apply the enhanced domestic violence penalties to Peterson.
The appellate court did not think Goodell's memorandum created a new penalty that could have been applied retroactively. Rather, the appellate court concluded that the August 2014 memorandum just further explained the then-existing personal conduct policy, effectively enhancing it.
The court also said Goodell may issue whatever punishment he believes is necessary under Article 46 and the personal conduct policy because neither limit the commissioner's authority. "In other words, the League might change its discipline without changing its policy," the court said.
What does the ruling mean for the NFL?
The ruling means Goodell has the power to increase or decrease punishment as he sees fit. The commissioner isn't limited to prior discipline -- i.e., Goodell doesn't have to issue the same punishment to a player that he issued in the past. Goodell has the power under Article 46 and the personal conduct policy to punish players to whatever extent he believes is necessary to deter the bad behavior.
Following the Deflategate decision against Tom Brady, this ruling just reaffirms the expansive reach of Goodell's powers when it comes to issuing punishments under the CBA.
What does the ruling mean for Adrian Peterson?
The ruling doesn't impact Peterson's ability to play. It requires only that he forfeit his game checks for the six games Goodell suspended him in November 2014. That's approximately $4.1 million of Peterson's $11.75 million salary. (After Week 2 of the 2014 season, Peterson was placed on the commissioner's exempt list, so although he was barred from all team activities until his child-abuse case was resolved, he still received his salary. It was after he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge that he was suspended, without pay, for the final six games of 2014.)
League sources told ESPN's Ed Werder that Peterson had already paid the NFL three game checks, leaving less than $2.1 million to be paid.
What does the ruling mean for the NFLPA and NFL players?
The ruling is another hit to the NFLPA. The back-to-back appellate court losses could deter the NFLPA from pursuing challenges to Goodell's authority in the future.
With this 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, coupled with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' Deflategate decision, the precedent has been set that Goodell has broad authority under Article 46. The decisions give the NFLPA little room to raise a viable argument undermining that authority.
That does not mean there won't be more discipline fights; in a different case, with different facts, the NFLPA might find it worthwhile to raise a challenge. It's the association's duty to defend the league's players.
How can the NFLPA change the breadth of Goodell's authority?
The NFLPA can limit Goodell's powers in Article 46 only by negotiating new terms in the CBA.
The CBA can be renegotiated at the end of the 2020 NFL season. That is, unless the NFL and NFLPA collectively agree to change the CBA before that time. This is unlikely, largely because Article 46 isn't an issue that impacts a lot of NFL players. Said another way, relatively few NFL players commit personal conduct policy violations.
And fewer are getting into trouble, period. As the Washington Post reported last week, there has been a 40 percent drop in the number of NFL player arrested in the first six months of this year as compared to the same period last year. That means the NFLPA might not make it a priority to negotiate a change in Goodell's powers under Article 46 now and possibly in the future.
Adrienne Lawrence is a legal analyst who practiced law from 2008 to 2015 before joining ESPN in August 2015. Follow her on Twitter @AdrienneESPN.