In a 33-page opinion and order, Judge Joseph Hood on June 3 dismissed a legal challenge to the Equestrian Integrity and Safety Act issued by the State of Oklahoma, West Virginia, respective racing committees and others launched.
Hood, the Senior United States Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky based in Lexington, ordered the case to be dismissed with prejudice, writing that the order was final and subject to appeal.
The case focuses on the plaintiffs’ various arguments that a federal law called HISA is an unconstitutional mandate for a private organization, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, also known as the HISA. HISA. The act gives the Federal Trade Commission rule-making powers to standardize drugs and track safety regulations that are currently in place on a state-by-state basis in 38 racing jurisdictions.
“Plaintiffs’ main problem with the law,” Hood wrote, “is that the FTC’s rules will be based on proposed standards set forth by the Competent Authority, which Plaintiffs argue is required by the FTC. , making the FTC part of the Agency.”
Defendants including HISA recommended dismissal of the case and summary judgment, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over this type of case; and that the complaint does not establish a claim under the law.
After realizing that the plaintiffs had filed a lawsuit against the case and that the case was ripe for a decision because of the upcoming HISA event starting on July 1, Hood determined that the court had jurisdiction. subject, which means that the court has not only the power but also the obligation to make decisions.
Hood then turned to the merits of the case and found that, assuming all the facts in the plaintiffs’ complaint were true, the plaintiffs’ claim for relief against HISA could not Accepted.
Legitimate authorization of the National Assembly
Hood found that the authorization law contained an “intelligible principle” guiding the FTC’s rule-making body sufficiently that the law was not an unconstitutional mandate to a federal agency of Congress.
Next, the judge found that the law gives the FTC sufficient “power and oversight” over the Agency to ensure that it operates as a private entity under the FTC, and not vice versa, in its process. rule builder. For the same reason, Hood wrote, arguments against the Agency’s self-interest charges must fail.
Lawful Authority Enforcement Powers
In addition to the plaintiffs’ arguments for the development of the rules, they objected to the Authority’s legal right to enforce those rules, arguing that the Office’s mandate to investigate alleged parties of violations of the rules and regulations. decisions, bring civil lawsuits against them and adjudicate doping as unconstitutional. and disruptive drugs.
Hood wrote that such actions are permissible as long as they take place under the guise of uniform procedures approved by the FTC, noting that penalties and sanctions cannot be imposed without providing due process rights and a fair court to make decisions may be considered. by an administrative law judge, whose decision may be reviewed by the FTC and judicial authorities.
Anti-command doctrine is not violated
Does HISA cross a line prohibited by the Constitution that prohibits Congress from requiring the states to fund the Agency’s activities and to require them to carry out its activities? There is strong precedent against crossing that line set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled “that Congress may not pass legislation requiring a state to regulate or enforce a federal regulations.”
Hood replied in the negative. Although the law states that states “may” pay a fee to HISA for its activities, they are not required to do so. Only private organizations are required to pay the fee, Hood writes, and any involvement by the states to help make that happen is voluntary.
The judge also wrote that a section of the law requiring the cooperation and information sharing of HISA and federal and state law enforcement agencies only requires HISA to cooperate with states, not vice versa. again.
The Oklahoma Horseracing Commission told BloodHorse on Friday night it was “disappointed with today’s rulings but grateful that the final judgment has been rendered so that the case can be continued through the appeals process.” .”
Many failures for HISA’s opponents
The decision is the second defeat for HISA opponents in federal court in about two months. Statements made in the Eastern District of Texas by the National Horsemanship Protection and Benevolence Association and the involvement of its affiliated HBPAs to prevent the Equestrian Integrity and Safety Act have been reviewed. US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix dismissed on March 31. An appeal of the decision to the Fifth Circuit is being pursued.
Any appeal against Hood’s decision will be directed to the Sixth Court of Appeals.
National Thoroughbred Racing Association President and CEO Tom Rooney said, “We are pleased with the thoughtful decision of the Kentucky court, consistent with the recent Texas court ruling. This ruling. validates the longstanding efforts to create uniform safety and integrity standards of consistency and fairness across states to protect horses, jockeys, trainers, customers and all others. participate in equestrian sport. We look forward to this law being implemented on July 1.”
