Is SafeSport Bound by the Constitution? The Fourth Circuit Says No

Timeline

1. 1978The Amateur Sports Act requires national governing bodies to give members notice and a hearing before declaring them ineligible.
2. Jun 25, 1987The Supreme Court holds in San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. USOC that the Olympic Committee is not a governmental actor.
3. Mar 3, 2017The first SafeSport Code is issued and SafeSport begins operating.
4. Feb 14, 2018The SafeSport Authorization Act takes effect, allowing sanctions before a hearing and stating that SafeSport is not a state actor.
5. 2018–2024SafeSport sanctions two equestrian professionals with permanent bans and a third with suspension and probation.
6. 2024–2025The three sue in federal court in Virginia; the district court dismisses the case, and they appeal.
7. Dec 10, 2025The Fourth Circuit hears argument; the United States intervenes.
8. Apr 24, 2026The Fourth Circuit holds that SafeSport, the USOPC and U.S. Equestrian are not state actors.
9. May 26, 2026The court denies rehearing; no judge requests a vote on rehearing by the full court.
10. Aug 11, 2026The Chief Justice extends the deadline for a Supreme Court petition to Oct. 23, 2026.

The ethical issues

• Should a body created and empowered by Congress be bound by constitutional due process?
• Protecting athletes quickly vs. giving the accused a hearing before sanctions.
• Whether consent through membership contracts is meaningful when the alternative is leaving the sport.
• Publication of sanctions in a public database before or without full adjudication.
• The cost of arbitration as a barrier to challenging sanctions.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Athletes and survivors of abuse	Swift removal of abusers and a process they can trust.
Coaches, trainers and others accused	Notice, a fair hearing and proportionate sanctions before careers are ended.
U.S. Center for SafeSport	Acting quickly and independently with limited resources.
USOPC and national governing bodies	Enforcing SafeSport decisions without liability or delay.
Congress and the federal government	Protecting athletes while keeping Olympic sport private.
Courts	Applying precedent on what counts as state action.

The case

The U.S. Center for SafeSport exists because the old system failed. After years of abuse scandals in Olympic sports, Congress gave a single organization the power to investigate abuse and remove people from Olympic and amateur sport. But that power raises a question that two kinds of critics have pressed from opposite directions: is SafeSport fair to the people it accuses? In 2026, a federal appeals court answered a narrower legal question. SafeSport, it held, is a private organization, so the Constitution’s due process guarantee does not apply to it.^[1]

Background

Olympic sport in the United States has always been privately run. The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 let the U.S. Olympic Committee (now the USOPC) recognize one national governing body (NGB) for each sport. It required each NGB to give members “fair notice and opportunity for a hearing” before declaring them ineligible.^[1][6] For four decades, NGBs largely policed themselves. As abuse scandals mounted, that arrangement became, in the Fourth Circuit’s words, “unsustainable.” The USOC incorporated SafeSport in 2014, and the first SafeSport Code took effect on March 3, 2017.^[1]

In 2018, Congress codified and expanded SafeSport’s role. The law gives SafeSport jurisdiction over the USOPC and every NGB “with regard to safeguarding amateur athletes against abuse.” It makes compliance with the SafeSport Code a condition of being an NGB and requires a public list of barred adults.^[1][5] SafeSport must give accused people “fair notice and an opportunity to be heard,” but the law says nothing in that provision prevents SafeSport “from imposing interim measures or sanctions on an individual before an opportunity for a hearing or arbitration.” It also states that nothing in the provision should be read “to render [SafeSport] a state actor.”^[1][5]

The court noted that, according to SafeSport’s 2024 annual report, the center had received more than 32,000 reports since 2017 and had named more than 2,200 people ineligible to participate.^[1][7]

The rules and governance

The Constitution’s due process clauses restrain government, not private parties. A private organization is treated as a “state actor” only in limited situations: when it performs a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to government, when government has outsourced a constitutional obligation to it, when government compels or significantly encourages the challenged action, or when it is pervasively entwined with government.^[1]

The key precedent is San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. USOC (1987). There the Supreme Court held that the Olympic Committee was not a governmental actor even though Congress had chartered it, regulated it and granted it exclusive rights to the word “Olympic.” The Court said that coordinating amateur sport had never been “a traditional governmental function.”^[4] Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented. He argued that the committee performed the governmental function of representing the nation and that “an organization that need not adhere to the Constitution cannot meaningfully represent this Nation.”^[4]

The challenge

Three equestrian professionals, two trainers and a breeder, were members of U.S. Equestrian, the NGB for Olympic equestrian sports, which has about 150,000 members.^[1] SafeSport permanently banned two of them in 2018 after learning of decades-old guilty pleas to child sexual abuse. Both arbitrated, and the arbitrators upheld the bans. SafeSport sanctioned the third in 2024 with a three-month suspension and nine months’ probation for a pattern of abusive behavior. She declined to arbitrate, saying the fee was prohibitive.^[1]

Two of the three, with other claimants, filed a grievance arguing that U.S. Equestrian could not enforce SafeSport sanctions without the hearing the 1978 Act requires. U.S. Equestrian and a USOPC panel each said they lacked authority to decide the question. An arbitration panel then said only a federal court could resolve the conflict. It indicated that it believed the SafeSport Code conflicted with the Act, because NGBs must enforce sanctions imposed before any hearing.^[1]

The three then sued SafeSport, the USOPC and U.S. Equestrian in federal court in Virginia. They argued that the sanctions violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights and that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated government power to a private body. The district court dismissed the case.^[1]

The Fourth Circuit’s decision

On April 24, 2026, a unanimous panel affirmed in part and reversed in part.^[1] It held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the USOPC. By law SafeSport has jurisdiction over the USOPC rather than the reverse, and neither the USOPC nor U.S. Equestrian could review SafeSport’s decisions; both were required to enforce them.^[1]

On the central question, the court said it was “compelled” by the 1987 precedent to hold that neither SafeSport nor U.S. Equestrian is a state actor. SafeSport’s investigative and adjudicative power, it said, extends only to abuse allegations against NGB members, and its findings determine only “membership in private organizations.” Its jurisdiction “is created and limited by the contracts that NGB members enter as a condition of membership.” Congress had not directed SafeSport to adopt the procedures challenged.^[1] The court added that Congress had acted only twice in 130 years of private Olympic sport, both times “with the express intent of preserving the private character” of that system. The plaintiffs, it said, were in effect arguing that the 1987 decision was wrong, which only the Supreme Court could decide.^[1]

The court did reverse on one point. The district court had dismissed the third plaintiff’s claims because she had not arbitrated her sanction. The appeals court held that her constitutional challenge to SafeSport’s procedures fell outside the scope of SafeSport arbitration, which is limited to whether someone violated the Code and what sanction applies, so she did not have to arbitrate first. Because the due process claims failed, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their separate claim that Congress had unlawfully delegated power to SafeSport, and it did not reach that question.^[1]

Aftermath

On May 26, 2026, the court denied rehearing, and no judge asked for a vote on rehearing by the full court.^[2] On August 11, the Chief Justice extended the plaintiffs’ deadline to petition the Supreme Court to October 23, 2026.^[3]

Sportico reported that the ruling gave SafeSport “some legal clarity” as it faced critics on both sides. Some say the center ends careers without due process; others say it is too slow to remove potential abusers. Sportico also reported that SafeSport receives $20 million a year from the USOPC, that its CEO said reports had risen 161% since 2021, and that arbitrations had “overwhelmed” its 25 lawyers.^[8]

The core dilemma

SafeSport was designed to act quickly and independently to protect athletes, including by imposing interim sanctions before a hearing. The people it sanctions can lose their livelihoods and see their names published. The court held that the Constitution does not require SafeSport to provide due process. That leaves an ethical question the law does not answer: how much procedural fairness does a body this powerful owe the people it judges, and to whom is it accountable?

Competing values

• Protection vs. procedure: quick interim action protects potential victims, while pre-sanction hearings protect the accused from wrongful harm.
• Private ordering vs. public accountability: keeping Olympic sport private avoids government control, but leaves powerful bodies outside constitutional limits.
• Contractual consent vs. practical necessity: members agree to SafeSport’s jurisdiction, but refusing means leaving the sport.
• Finality vs. access: arbitration provides a decision, but costs can keep people from using it.

Strongest arguments

For the court’s decision: Binding Supreme Court precedent holds that the Olympic Committee is not a state actor, and SafeSport exercises powers the committee once held.^[1][4] Congress expressly said SafeSport is not a state actor and expressly allowed sanctions before a hearing.^[5] SafeSport’s jurisdiction rests on membership contracts, not general government power.^[1] Treating SafeSport as government could slow its work and expose it to constitutional litigation it was not designed for.

For the challengers: SafeSport exists only because Congress created its role, defined its jurisdiction and made its Code binding on every NGB.^[1][5] The 1978 Act requires NGBs to provide a hearing before declaring members ineligible, yet NGBs must enforce SafeSport sanctions imposed without one, a conflict an arbitration panel flagged.^[1][6] The sanctions can effectively end careers and are published by law.^[1][5] Justice Brennan’s 1987 dissent argued that bodies exercising delegated public power should be bound by the Constitution, a concern that arguably applies even more strongly to an adjudicator of abuse claims.^[4]

Applying the frameworks

Rights-based

The rights of the accused to notice, a hearing and an impartial decision-maker are central to fairness, whether or not the Constitution requires them in a given setting. Athletes also have a right to be protected from abuse. A rights-based approach would not let either set of rights automatically override the other. It would ask SafeSport to justify each interim sanction imposed before a hearing and to provide a prompt, affordable hearing afterward.^[1][5]

Justice & fairness (Rawls)

Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you would be an athlete at risk of abuse, a coach facing an accusation, or a survivor waiting for a decision, you would want a system that removes dangerous people quickly but gives everyone a fair hearing, regardless of ability to pay. On that test, the cost barrier to arbitration and the lack of a pre-sanction hearing are weaknesses, even if they are lawful.^[1]

Utilitarian

A utilitarian weighs the harm prevented by fast removal of abusers against the harm caused by wrongful sanctions and the costs of more process. Extra procedure costs money and time for an organization that, by its CEO’s account, is already overwhelmed.^[8] But wrongful sanctions also harm individuals and erode trust in the system, which can discourage reporting and cooperation. The best outcome probably requires both quick interim protection and adequately funded, timely hearings.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue: A congressionally empowered private body can sanction people before a hearing, and a court has held that constitutional due process does not apply.
2. Gather facts: Statutory powers and limits, sanction procedures, arbitration costs and fee waivers, case volumes, and outcomes of appeals.
3. Test options: Keep the current procedures; require prompt post-sanction hearings; cap or subsidize arbitration fees; limit interim sanctions to defined risk levels; ask Congress to clarify procedures.
4. Check codes and law: The SafeSport Authorization Act, the Amateur Sports Act’s hearing requirement, the SafeSport Code, and the 1987 Supreme Court precedent.
5. Decide and document: Adopt written standards for interim measures and timelines for hearings, with reasons recorded for each sanction.
6. Communicate and follow up: Publish procedures and data on timing and outcomes, review fairness with athletes and accused people, and adjust funding and staffing.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: in the Fourth Circuit, SafeSport, the USOPC and U.S. Equestrian are not state actors subject to constitutional due process; constitutional challenges to SafeSport’s procedures need not first go to SafeSport arbitration; rehearing was denied.^[1][2]
• Contested: whether the Supreme Court will review the case; whether the 1987 precedent should govern a body with SafeSport’s powers; how to reconcile the 1978 hearing requirement with SafeSport’s power to sanction first; what procedures fairness requires regardless of the law.

Why this case matters

Many sports bodies exercise power over people’s livelihoods without being bound by constitutional limits. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling confirms that, for SafeSport, fairness depends on statute, internal rules and the organization’s own commitments. That raises the stakes for how SafeSport designs its procedures, how Congress funds and oversees it, and whether the athletes it protects and the people it judges can trust its decisions.

See also: The U.S. Center for SafeSport: Protecting Athletes, Protecting Due Process.

Key terms

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Legal but unethical

Law sets out what can be punished; ethics asks what is right. Compliance is a minimum, so an action can be lawful and still wrong.

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. SafeSport was created to replace a system in which national governing bodies too often protected abusers. Does that history justify allowing sanctions before a hearing?
2. The court said SafeSport's jurisdiction comes from contracts people sign to join a sport. Is that consent meaningful when the alternative is leaving the sport?
3. Should a private body that Congress created and empowered be treated differently from other private organizations? Where would you draw the line?
4. Justice Brennan argued in 1987 that an organization representing the nation should have to follow the Constitution. Does his reasoning apply more strongly to SafeSport?
5. If SafeSport is not required to provide constitutional due process, what procedures should it adopt anyway, and why?

Sources

1. Navarro v. U.S. Center for SafeSport, No. 25-1150 (4th Cir. Apr. 24, 2026) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
2. Order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc, No. 25-1150 (May 26, 2026) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (via Supreme Court docket)
3. Docket No. 26A173 — Supreme Court of the United States
4. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987) — U.S. Reports via Library of Congress
5. 36 U.S. Code § 220541 – Duties — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
6. 36 U.S. Code § 220522 – Eligibility requirements — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
7. U.S. Center for SafeSport 2024 Annual Report — U.S. Center for SafeSport
8. SafeSport's New CEO Looks to Shine a Light on Problems — Sportico