By Clare E. Maness, JD
Since Congress enacted 36 U.S.C. § 220541 in 2018 and designated the U.S. Center for SafeSport as the United States’ national safe-sport organization (Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, 2018), the U.S. Olympic movement has experienced various tremors from litigation involving the policies of, and enforcement actions conducted by, the U.S. Center for SafeSport. This past June, the federal docket saw another case filed: Strine v. U.S. Center for SafeSport (2024). The case is noteworthy for numerous reasons, including the venue issues it has presented, the state-actor and jurisdiction questions raised, and the fact that it involves a non-athlete who maintained membership in an Olympic-movement national governing body (NGB) only because he owned a facility at which sporting events occurred, and who allegedly engaged in misconduct in a non-sport setting.
Background: United States Equestrian Federation (USEF), United States Eventing Association (USEA), Derek Strine’s Equestrian Businesses, and SafeSport Allegations Related to Non-Sporting Conduct.
In this federal action, Derek Strine is challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s investigation and proceedings against him for alleged violations of the SafeSport Code of Conduct. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As articulated in his complaint, Strine has owned show horses and a horse-show facility in Florida. He does not ride competitively, coach, or train horses. His exposure to equestrian events came with his daughter taking up competitive riding, specifically the equestrian discipline of eventing. As a businessman and real-estate investor, Mr. Strine decided to develop an eventing center in Florida. Along with this endeavor, he began investing in the development of eventing horses.
In 2019, Mr. Strine engaged in intimate activity with an adult woman, identified by her initials E.D. in the complaint. The pair did not have a sport-related or business relationship. E.D. was not an employee of Mr. Strine’s enterprises, nor was she a student, subordinate of any type, or contractor. In 2023, Mr. Strine received from the U.S. Center for SafeSport a notice of allegations against him and a notice that the center was imposing temporary restrictions against him with regard to his memberships in USEF and USEA, memberships he did not maintain for competitive purposes, since he does not compete as an equestrian. He was a member of these organizations only for business reasons. From the notice he received, Mr. Strine gathered that E.D. was claiming the pair’s sexual encounter had not been consensual. The center then effectively suspended Mr. Strine’s business activities related to his equestrian endeavors, which largely related to equestrian sport.
Subsequently, Mr. Strine was informed of a complaint from a person identified as V.D., who, like E.D., had never had any sort of sport or employee/subordinate relationship with Mr. Strine; the only relationship was a consensual romantic one. Never was there an imbalance of power with regard to Mr. Strine and the complainants (an imbalance of power being a key concern with SafeSport allegations (U.S. Center for SafeSport, 2024)).
Sometime later, Mr. Strine received a third notice from the center, alleging he had violated the so-called temporary measures against him by attending a horse show. Mr. Strine had, it seems, visited a restaurant that had a view of certain horse-show grounds. Mr. Strine was not given any sort of a hearing on these matters. A fourth notice from the center informed Mr. Strine that E.D. and V.D. had expanded their claims to include allegations related to administration of an intoxicating substance. The center did not indicate that it had received knowledge of E.D. settling, in May 2024, a civil action she had filed against Mr. Strine.
The center placed Mr. Strine on their publicly accessible database of alleged wrongdoers, and although USEF and USEA both suspended Mr. Strine’s memberships, Mr. Strine received no hearings. The value of his eventing facility has dropped some $1.5 million due to the USEA ban on events at that facility, and business associates have cancelled horse transactions with him. Furthermore, he is banned from events and locations at which he would otherwise conduct horse-related business.
Venue: Colorado or Florida?
Originally, Mr. Strine filed his action in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida, explaining in his complaint that a substantial part of the contested events occurred within that district. The U.S. Center for SafeSport sought, among other things, transfer of the action to the District of Colorado, which the Florida district court granted, citing provisions in the SafeSport code that call for disputes related to the code to be litigated in the District of Colorado (Strine v. U.S. Center for SafeSport, 2024; U.S. Center for SafeSport, 2024). An interesting legal aside on this point involves “agreement” to this selection of venue. The federal court in Florida cited case law on enforcing valid forum-selection clauses originally agreed to by the parties to a suit. The venue provision at issue simply appears in the SafeSport code (U.S. Center for SafeSport, 2024).
Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and Unlawful Expansion of Jurisdiction.
Mr. Strine has claimed that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising jurisdiction over conduct that in no way involved sport. Because he never had a sport-related relationship with either E.D. or V.D., he is claiming the center exceeded its jurisdiction under § 220541 (Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, 2018). Indeed, while E.D. had been a USEF member at the time of the conduct giving rise to the allegations, V.D. was not a USEF member, or a member of any NGB, at the time of the alleged conduct.
Likewise, Mr. Strine is challenging the center’s claim to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over sexual allegations that would constitute SafeSport code violations and the center’s claims that its actions fall beyond Article III judicial review. (One can see the center’s claims to exclusivity in its code (U.S. Center for SafeSport, 2024).) Citing non-delegation concerns, he is challenging the center’s promulgation of its code without legislative processes or judicial review available. He is also claiming a breach of his due-process rights under § 220541(a)(1)(H) (Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, 2018), because he did not receive a prehearing determination before the center imposed its temporary measures/restrictions.
On a discrete procedural note, Mr. Strine has also claimed a due-process violation based on the center’s refusal to allow him to have any proceedings stenographically recorded for a potential appellate record. Along with due-process concerns, Mr. Strine has claimed the center violated his rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. He has claimed that insulation of the center’s actions from judicial review violates the U.S. Constitution. Citing Axon Enterprise (2023), he has claimed a here-and-now injury and a right to avoid the center’s unconstitutional adjudicatory process. In raising this issue, he has clarified that his claims are collateral to any claims made in the complaints to the U.S. Center for SafeSport; he is not asking the federal court to adjudicate those latter claims—rather he is asking the federal court to find that the center does not have jurisdiction to investigate or adjudicate those claims.
The Center’s Response.
In its response to Mr. Strine’s claims, the U.S. Center for SafeSport argued a lack of Article III judicial jurisdiction; that Mr. Strine was required to participate in arbitration of his claims; and that constitutional claims against the center cannot stand, based on private-actor status. The center requested dismissal or an order that Mr. Strine arbitrate his claims. It is interesting to note that the USEF membership information the center submitted related to Mr. Strine’s NGB membership features 2020 and 2021 dates, post-dating the alleged 2019 misconduct at issue. The center made clear in its response that it will police all conduct of NGB members, regardless of sport-activity affiliation.
In one of its filings, the center invoked prosecutorial immunity, citing Gilbert v. United States Olympic Committee (2019). In that case, adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the judge found, that “SafeSport’s decision [was] akin to that as a ‘prosecutor’ closely associated with the judicial process, and SafeSport [was] protected by absolute immunity from liability for its decision” (p. *6). This addition to the center’s arguments is somewhat interesting in light of the private-actor points.
Where to Next?
The latest entry on the docket is a January 23, 2025 submission of supplemental authority from the center. In that submission, the center cited Navarro v. U.S. Center for SafeSport (2025), from the Western District of Virginia. The Navarro court concluded that the center does not qualify as a state actor, but in doing so, she noted that the plaintiffs in that case had “barely” responded to the center’s arguments on the issue, and had not offered “any persuasive counterarguments” (p. *15).
Given the resources that seem available to Mr. Strine, an adverse judgment in his case may perhaps produce an appeal for interested court watchers to follow. Considering the age of the key cases the center has cited to support its claims to private-actor status and the significant ways in which the relevant statutory scheme has changed in recent years, the government funding the center has received and continues to receive, the lack of argument the plaintiffs in Navarro (2025) seem to have presented on the private-actor issue (a fact that somewhat undermines the value of the conclusions in that case), and the shifts in jurisprudence we have seen from the U.S. Supreme Court, at least since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, one has to wonder if the Tenth Circuit might take an interested look at an appeal in Strine (2024).
References
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S.175 (2023).
Gilbert v. United States Olympic Committee, No. 18-CV-00981-CMA-MEH, 2019 WL
10252758 (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2019).
Navarro v. U.S. Center for SafeSport, No. 3:24-CV-30, 2025 WL 209166 (Dist. W.D. Va. Jan.15, 2025).Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, 36 U.S.C. § 220541 et seq. (2018). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220541
Strine v. U.S. Center for SafeSport, No. 1:24-CV-2329 (D. Colo. 2024).
U.S. Center for SafeSport (2024, July 31). SafeSport code for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2024_SafeSportCode-_073124_v3-A-.pdf
Clare Maness has practiced federal criminal defense since she earned her J.D. magna cum laude from the Ave Maria School of Law in 2006 (where she served as a senior editor for the law review). She began her legal career with the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Michigan and is now in private practice. She is admitted to practice in the State of New Mexico, various federal district and circuit courts, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. As a student in the sport-management PhD program at Troy University’s Sorrell College of Business, she focuses her research on sports law, policy, governance, and criminology. In her spare time, she competes in archery in the professional division.
