Josh Gordon v. NFL
The NFL upheld Josh Gordon's one year suspension on August 27, 2014, leaving him limited routes to playing in the 2014 NFL season. One possible route is to petition an Ohio court that the NFL violated Ohio law in suspending him. Gordon could ask the court for an injunction causing his suspension to be delayed until well after the NFL season.
Gordon's legal theory would be based around Ohio's "confirmatory test," which requires a second positive sample if an employee initially tests positive for drugs. Gordon took two samples for the NFL, and rather than confirm his first positive test, the second test yielded a negative result. Gordon's argument is strengthened by Williamses v. NFL, otherwise known as the Starcaps litigation. In this case, Pat and Kevin Williams succeeded in arguing that Minnesota law was not preempted by the NFL's collectively bargained policies.
However, in order for Gordon to be granted an injunction, he must overcome an extraordinarily high standard. Such standard includes: 1) proving that he would win his case; 2) proving irreparable harm; 3) proving that the injunction would not harm the NFL more than it helps him; and 4) that this injunction would advance the public interest.
In his article, Michael McCann of Sports Illustrated highlights the NFL's defenses. You can find his full article at the below link.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/28/josh-gordon-suspension-browns-nfl-legal-options