Congress passed the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act in the fall of 2020 during the frenzy of the COVID-19 pandemic and during a hotly contested presidential election. The law’s aim was to mitigate the significant rates of injury, death, and use of performance-enhancing drugs in the horseracing industry. It established the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, a private, non-profit corporation with the capability to enforce nationwide safety and anti-doping rules. This new entity could monitor state industries for compliance and take punitive actions against violators.
However, this novel authority has faced numerous legal challenges since its inception. A coalition of states, led by Oklahoma, and their racing commissions have disputed the Act’s constitutionality. They assert that it delegates federal power to a private company, signalling a violation of the private non-delegation doctrine. Additionally, they argue that by forcing the states to fund the authority, it commandeers state resources to implement a federal program—an allegation which emphasizes the anti-commandeering doctrine.
The subsequent lawsuits have resulted in mixed rulings. A U.S. district court in Kentucky initially dismissed these claims. However, in a separate case in Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the restrictions on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) oversight over the horseracing authority violated the private non-delegation doctrine as they allowed the authority unchecked legislative power.
In response to this decision, Congress amended the 2020 law to delegate expanded oversight powers to the FTC. The agency is now authorized to issue its rules that can alter the rules of the horseracing authority. Nevertheless, the states refuted these amendments, maintaining their contention that the Act violates the Constitution.
The dispute has since escalated to the Supreme Court, where the states are seeking a reversal of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that had previously dismissed their claims. As we await further developments, legal professionals, especially those working in the horseracing industry, should monitor this case closely as its outcome promises to shape the future horseracing governance in the United States.
Read more about it from the original publication here.