holding that a statute prohibiting certain commercial and promotional uses of the word “Olympic” was not a content-based restriction on speech, even though it allegedly “suppressed] political speech” by restricting the defendants’ ability to “convey a political statement about the status of homosexuals in society”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a statute prohibiting certain commercial and promotional uses of the word “Olympic” was not a content-based restriction on speech, even though it allegedly “suppressed] political speech” by restricting the defendants’ ability to “convey a political statement about the status of homosexuals in society”
- holding that U.S. Olympic Committee is not a governmental actor despite federal charter, regulation, and funding
- finding that granting of a corporate charter by Congress does not create state action because "[e]ven extensive regulation by the government does not transform the actions of the regulated entity into those of the government."
- recognizing the government’s interest in preventing misappropriation of the term “Olympics,” and analogizing that prohibition to 18 U.S.C. § 705, which prohibits the unauthorized use of the insignia of veterans’ organizations
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice O’Connor,
with whom
Justice Blackmun joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the Court’s construction of § 110 of the Amateur Sports Act, 92 Stat. 3048 , 36 U. S. C. § 380 , and with its holding that the statute is “within constitutional bounds.” Ante, at 535. Therefore, I join Parts I through III of the Court’s opinion. But largely for the reasons explained by Justice Brennan in Part I-B of his dissenting opinion, I believe the United States Olympic Committee and the United States are joint participants in the challenged activity and as such are subject to the equal protection provisions of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, I would reverse the Court of Appeals’ finding of no Government action and remand the case for determination of petitioners’ claim of discriminatory enforcement.