Green Bay Packers running back Josh Jacobs is set to come off the NFL’s commissioner exempt list and could return to action next week.
However, Jacobs may still face additional discipline. The NFL’s investigation remains active after he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges of battery and criminal damage to property.
Jacobs was placed on the commissioner exempt list on August 30, preventing him from practicing or playing for the Packers after his arrest following a May altercation with his then-girlfriend.
In a statement issued Friday, the NFL confirmed that Jacobs will be eligible to play when Green Bay faces the Detroit Lions in Week 7 on October 25.
“The league’s review remains ongoing and is not affected by this change to Jacobs’ roster status,” the NFL said.
The 28-year-old is scheduled to be officially removed from the Commissioner Exempt List on Monday, October 19. ESPN reported that the league could still suspend or otherwise discipline Jacobs later in the season following its investigation under the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy.

Packers running back Josh Jacobs is set to come off the NFL’s commissioner exempt list

Jacobs pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery and criminal damage to property charges
In a statement to the Daily Mail, Jacobs’ attorneys said: “Josh has dedicated the last several months to bettering himself, and he accepts responsibility for his actions. He is excited to get back to work and on the field with his teammates.
“Josh is grateful for the support he is receiving from his teammates, coaches, the Packers organization, and the greatest fans in the world. Since there are ongoing legal matters, he will not have any further comment.”
The Packers are 3-2, and Jacobs’ return would provide a significant lift for Matt LaFleur’s offense. Last season, the running back recorded 13 touchdowns and 929 rushing yards.
The NFL’s decision came one day after reports emerged that Jacobs is suing a Wisconsin police department in an effort to keep records and evidence from his battery case permanently sealed.
The lawsuit was filed Wednesday against the Hobart-Lawrence Police Department in Brown County Circuit Court.
Jacobs was charged in August with misdemeanor battery and criminal damage to property. Prosecutors said they had corroborating evidence, including surveillance video from Jacobs’ garage, and the NFL star pleaded no contest last month.
The 28-year-old was ordered to attend counseling and pay restitution to the victim.
In September, District Judge Marc A. Hammer ended a temporary order sealing the evidence at the victim’s request. Since September 11, the decision on whether to release the evidence has rested with Hobart-Lawrence police, who have so far declined to make it public.

Josh Jacobs’ return is expected to strengthen the Packers’ 3-2 offense
Attorneys representing the victim filed a motion in September seeking to keep the records sealed.
In Jacobs’ lawsuit, his attorney, Clarence Duchac, referenced that motion while arguing that the evidence should remain confidential.
“[Jacobs] joins and supports [the victim’s] position that the identifying, private and sensitive records associated with the underlying incident should not be publicly released,” an excerpt published by The Associated Press stated.
The Daily Mail has sought the complaint from Brown County Circuit Court officials as well as the evidence from Hobart-Lawrence police.
Meanwhile, the NFL is also trying to obtain the evidence as part of its investigation into the incident, a league spokesman told the Daily Mail last month.
Jacobs’ attorney also cited a recent string of robberies at the home of famous athletes in arguing that the evidence from the case should remain sealed.
‘The public availability of [Jacobs’] schedule or travel information increases the risk that persons could identify periods when [Jacobs] is away from home and use released information concerning the residence, garage, access points, security arrangements, or property to target the property,’ read one portion of the lawsuit.
‘Widespread public dissemination of those details would materially increase [Jacobs’] vulnerability to theft, burglary, robbery, trespass, or other targeted criminal conduct.’