It was 20 years ago when international events would set the stage for the first-ever United States boycott of the Olympic games. The 1980 games were awarded to Moscow and many in the west feared that the games would turn to a propaganda show for the Soviets (as if that was the first time the Olympics were used in that manner). When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter pressured the United States Olympic Committee to  boycott the games. He threatened to withhold funding, revoke the organization's tax exemption if it would not comply. Not surprisingly, it did.

That decision was met with scorn by the athletes who were selected to the U.S. team and who trained hard to get to that position. Twenty-five members of the 1980 US Olympic team scheduled to go to Moscow sued the USOC. The lead plaintiff was Anita DeFrantz who now serves on the International Olympic Committee.

The plaintiffs made a number of claims. First, they alleged that the USOC violated the 1978 Amateur Sports Act (the statute that governs matters dealing with Olympic participation and the powers of national governing bodies of amateur sports) as the USOC did not have the power to decide not to enter an American team in the Olympics. The court rejected this argument, noting that any limitation on the USOC's power would have to specifically stated, especially since the section that the USOC has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters to pertaining to participation in the Olympics.

Then, plaintiffs argued that the decision not to participate in an Olympic games had to be "sports-related," noting that the law states that a national governing body may withhold its sanction only upon evidence that participating would be detrimental to the best interests of the sport. The court also rejected this claim, concluding that the section of the law was drafted with the intention to prevent power struggles between governing bodies involving amateur athletics, not to limit USOC decisionmaking.

Constitutionally, the court concluded that the USOC is a private organization, despite federal charter and there was no intermingling between government and private functions here, except to submit an annual report to the President and Congress. Therefore, Constitutional protections are more limited. Finally, the court rejected the argument that pressure by the Carter Administration  affected the USOC's judgment because the USOC made its decision by secret ballot. Any political pressure was not sufficient state control.