Churchill Downs Inc. and the New York Racing Association (NYRA) have filed a lawsuit against the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA), challenging the national body’s constitutionality and the legal framework under which it operates. The legal battle has the potential to significantly impact the future of U.S. horse racing.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky last week. It raises critical questions about the authority of HISA, a private organization with regulatory powers granted by Congress, to oversee the safety and integrity of horseracing nationwide. Churchill Downs, known for hosting the Kentucky Derby, and NYRA, which runs major tracks like Belmont Park, Aqueduct Racetrack, and Saratoga Race Course, are seeking to block the enforcement of HISA’s regulations.
The Origins of the Lawsuit
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority was established in 2020 as part of a federal law designed to address safety and integrity concerns within the horse racing industry. HISA was given broad powers to create and enforce regulations related to racehorse safety, medication policies, and track safety standards. The creation of this body was a response to ongoing concerns about doping, horse injuries, and other ethical issues in the sport.
However, Churchill Downs and NYRA argue that the law empowering HISA is unconstitutional. Specifically, they contend that it violates the U.S. Constitution by giving a private entity—rather than a government agency—the authority to regulate the sport and enforce laws without sufficient oversight. The plaintiffs further claim that HISA’s regulatory powers infringe upon the administrative process required under the Administrative Procedure Act.
“We believe that HISA’s control over the sport of horseracing is a step too far,” said a spokesperson for Churchill Downs. “The oversight should remain with the states and be subject to due process protections.”
The lawsuit’s potential to reshape the regulatory landscape of horse racing is substantial, as it questions whether a private entity can legally wield such sweeping authority in a sector historically regulated at the state level.
The Role of HISA
HISA’s creation followed growing calls for reform in horse racing, especially after high-profile incidents involving horse deaths and doping scandals. The organization’s stated mission is to ensure the safety and integrity of the sport by setting national standards for medication, track safety, and other vital aspects of racing.
One of the major components of HISA’s role is overseeing the implementation of anti-doping regulations across the entire sport. The law requires the use of independent testing for prohibited substances, and violators could face suspension, fines, or disqualification. The authority is also responsible for implementing safety measures on tracks, including ensuring that facilities meet specific safety criteria.
While the law’s proponents argue that the federal oversight is necessary to clean up the sport and protect the welfare of the horses and jockeys, critics—including Churchill Downs and NYRA—contend that it oversteps the boundaries of federalism. They argue that horseracing has traditionally been a state-regulated industry, and state-based racing commissions should maintain control over the sport’s regulations.
Key Legal Arguments
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenges the law that empowered HISA, claiming it violates the separation of powers doctrine. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that Congress has delegated too much regulatory authority to a private entity without adequate checks and balances. Churchill Downs and NYRA argue that HISA’s sweeping powers over the sport—ranging from drug testing and enforcement to setting track safety standards—violate the constitutional principle of government accountability.
Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that the creation of HISA infringes upon the rights of states to regulate their own industries. The plaintiffs argue that the states, not a private regulatory body, should retain the power to govern horse racing within their borders.
In response, HISA has defended its actions, stating that the federal government’s intervention in the sport was necessary to address widespread issues related to safety and fairness. The organization has maintained that its structure, as a private entity with public duties, complies with constitutional requirements and that it is legally empowered to act on behalf of the broader interests of horse racing.
Potential Impact on the Sport
The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences for the future of horse racing regulation in the U.S. If the court rules in favor of Churchill Downs and NYRA, it could significantly alter the structure of horseracing governance, potentially forcing Congress to revisit the law that created HISA or to allow states more control over the industry.
On the other hand, if HISA is upheld, it could solidify the authority of private regulatory bodies in other sectors as well, particularly in industries where federal oversight is difficult to enforce.
The lawsuit has drawn attention not only from within the horseracing world but also from legal experts and constitutional scholars who are watching closely to see how the courts interpret the power of private organizations in regulatory roles.
