By now everyone has heard of the racial debacle with Los Angeles Clippers’ owner Donald Sterling, involving his controversial beliefs against African Americans. Only a few days after the recording of his discussion went public, the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver responded, with authority.

Mr. Silver announced that Mr. Sterling would be banned for life and fined the maximum amount of ＄2.5 million for making racist comments.

The NBA’s Commissioner also said he would urge the league’s board of governors to force him out of ownership. The big question is: Was Adam Silver’s decision legal?

Popular consensus seems to show that lawyers and legal experts generally agree that Mr. Silver was justified in his decision to enforce the lifetime ban and fine. The NBA’s constitution, which is a collection of laws governing the operation of the league and collectively agreed to by all team owners, grants the Commissioner the power to govern any behavior that is deemed “prejudicial” or “detrimental” to the league, according to Gabe Feldman, director of the sports-law program at Tulane University. Furthermore, the NBA’s constitution legally allows fines and suspensions because it is part of the Commissioner’s newly ordained power.

Overturning the Commissioner’s rulings is extremely difficult and would require a lengthy legal battle. Most lawyers seem to agree that Don Sterling would lose in court because Adam Silver did not do anything illegal in terms of the fine and suspension. The controversial aspect is Adam Silver’s desire to oust Don Sterling from his position of ownership.

The NBA constitution requires at least 75% of the league’s owners to collectively agree on dismissing a current owner.

But do the owners have the legal right to ban Mr. Sterling from being an owner? Racism has never been brought up during these types of situations, and it is usually gambling, late payments, or serious felonies that make the decision more clear.

In Don Sterling’s case, he was not mismanaging the team, disregarding financial payments, or doing anything illegal in that sense. It becomes a prototypical case of culture and racism that determines whether outspoken racism is grounds for losing ownership rights. This is a grey area that needs to be more strictly outlined.