Jason Frakes of the Louisville Courier Journal was among the first to report on the motion, which was filed in Kentucky the same morning as a Jefferson County Circuit Court hearing was held on the matter.

That Monday hearing put off until at least Apr. 15 a decision on owner Amr Zedan's request for an injunction or on CDI's motion to dismiss.

“Everybody involved in horse racing is watching this issue, I'm sure,” Judge Mitch Perry was quoted in the Courier Journal.

Zedan owns the GI Arkansas Derby winner Muth (Good Magic), who would be among the Derby favorites if allowed to race.

It is unclear if a ruling in favor of Zedan would allow other Baffert trainees owned by different entities to also participate in the Derby, or if any lifting of the ban would also permit Baffert's trainees to enter the GI Kentucky Oaks.

According to the Courier Journal, CDI's motion stated that “The demand for a last-minute judicial takeover of the world's most storied horse race…is baseless, outrageous and should be immediately rejected.”

After Medina Spirit tested positive for betamethasone in the 2021 Derby, Baffert was banned from CDI's properties for two years. A federal judge in February 2023 denied Baffert a preliminary injunction that the Hall-of-Fame trainer had sought to be eligible to race in the Derby. Last July CDI extended the ban at least through 2024.

Baffert is not a party to this latest lawsuit filed by Zedan in a Kentucky state court.

“CDI's spurious, illegal extension of the suspension does not withstand scrutiny and imperils a host of interested stakeholders,” Zedan's Apr. 3 complaint stated.

The post Report: CDI Files Motion To Dismiss Zedan’s Derby Lawsuit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The purpose of the HISA Authority's Sept. 13 press conference was to go public with a months-in-the-making report on 12 horse deaths at Churchill Downs this past spring, and also for the Authority unveil a wide-ranging “strategic response plan” to predict and halt catastrophes before they occur. According to the report, which also listed numerous other safety proposals, the goal of entering into agreements with Thoroughbred auction houses would be “to more effectively align and coordinate our respective anti-doping and medication control [ADMC] programs.”

The purpose of the NHBPA's Sept. 15 legal filing, by contrast, was to let the court know that as the plaintiffs/appellants in a two-year-old lawsuit that is trying to derail HISA based on alleged constitutional violations, the NHBPA and 12 of its affiliates believed that by entering into such negotiations with sales companies, “the Authority has announced its intention to add another line to the already long list of 20-plus examples of the Authority writing the rules for the industry without going through the rulemaking process.”

The two-page letter written by the NHBPA's attorney, Daniel Suhr, prefaced its legal criticisms of the Authority's discussions with sales companies by first stating that, “The NHBPA Appellants appreciate the policy goal to ensure effective ADMC standards that include breeders: as the advocate for owners of horses, they support measures that ensure full and accurate information from breeders for buyers.

“But as a legal matter, two things are obvious from the announcement,” the NHBPA letter continued. “First, one section of the industry that is included in the scope of the Act is receiving preferential treatment-the breeders get to negotiate their rules through voluntary agreements while other sectors like trainers and racetracks have rules imposed upon them by Authority fiat.

“And second, once again the Authority is engaged in regulatory activity outside the rulemaking process. When the Authority enters into a 'voluntary agreement' with a breeding company, it is not required to publish or publicize the text of that agreement (or provide it if requested through FOIA), receive and consider public comment (including feedback from other affected equine constituencies), or run it by the Federal Trade Commission [FTC],” the NHBPA letter stated.

The allegations by the NHBPA were filed with oral arguments in the highly anticipated Fifth Circuit appeals case coming up soon, on Oct. 4.

A lower federal court already ruled back on May 4 that the rewritten HISA law that went into effect Dec. 29, 2022, is indeed constitutional because it fixes the problems the Fifth Circuit had identified in an earlier version of the law. The NHBPA plaintiffs are arguing for another reversal.

The points of law raised by the NHBPA's Sept. 15 letter, however, won't be considered by the court in their current format.

That's because the letter did not meet the standard for the type of filing that notifies the court of pertinent and significant findings after a party's brief has been filed, according to a docket entry made by the court clerk on Sept. 15. “Therefore, we are taking no action on this letter,” the clerk stated.

If the NHBPA wants its comments on the issue to be considered, the clerk's notation continued,  “A motion seeking leave to file a supplemental brief is required.”

Regardless of its status, the letter was made public within the docket once the court refused to take action on it, and its contents are important to the broader world of horse racing because the objections over the sales company discussions underscore both the ongoing and newly developing rifts between the NHBPA plaintiffs and the HISA and FTC defendants.

A chief point of contention between the two parties is that the Authority has stated that it will negotiate (rather than propose and implement) ADMC rules upon sales companies because its interpretation of the law is that some young horses sold as auction aren't yet “covered horses” under HISA.

Speaking at the Sept. 13 press conference, Lisa Lazarus, HISA's chief executive officer, explained that “a horse becomes a HISA [covered] horse after it's had its first public workout, first timed workout. So some of the 2-year-old sales would certainly fall under HISA's purview. The weanlings and yearlings wouldn't.”

But, Lazarus added last week, “I think we're at the point where if HISA leads the way that we should, and the way that we intend to, that we'll be able to motivate the industry to come under one kind of comprehensive, understandable, kind of ADMC approach.”

The NHBPA, on the other hand, wrote in a footnote to its Sept. 15 letter that under its reading of HISA, it believes breeders do qualify as “covered persons,” and that breeders as a group are included “among equine constituencies.” Thus, the plaintiffs' argument goes, it's allegedly not fair for one sector of covered persons to have a say in negotiating rules while other covered persons don't.

Asked on Sept. 18 if the HISA Authority would like to comment on the NHBPA's assertions in the letter, an Authority spokesperson wrote in an email that, “The NHBPA overlooks the fact that Congress decided that Thoroughbred horses are not covered horses under the Act until their 'first timed and reported workout.' Therefore, it is necessary for the sales companies to voluntarily agree so that we could effectively align and coordinate our respective ADMC programs throughout the lifetime of a horse.”

The post HBPA: Negotiations Between HISA And Sales Companies Equate To ‘Preferential Treatment’ For Breeders appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

“Sometimes [the Authority] wants to be like a government entity, with the power to compel registration, collect mandatory fees, conduct searches, draw blood and urine samples, and impose sanctions with 'the force of federal law,'” stated the 36-page brief filed Friday by the NHBPA and 12 of its affiliates.

“Other times it wants to be a private business league, choosing its own board, running its own corporate affairs, and exempt from the Appointments and Appropriations clauses, the Freedom of Information Act, etc…” the brief continued.

This purported dual nature of the Authority, the NHBPA alleged, “exposes the overall flaw” by which the 2022 rewrite of the HISA law should be struck down.

“Nothing could be more unfair or inequitable than to have a regulator with all the powers of government but exempt from all the democratic accountability and safeguards for liberty imposed on government,” the NHBPA's filing stated.

“The best of both worlds for the Authority is the worst of all worlds for horsemen,” the NHBPA's filing asserted.

The Fifth Circuit oral arguments scheduled for the first week in October represent the latest attempt by the NHBPA to derail the HISA law via an underlying lawsuit that has persisted in the federal court system for nearly 2 ½ years.

In addition to the HISA Authority, personnel from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are defendants in that suit.

Back on Aug. 4, the Authority defendants filed their own brief that told the court the continued legal attacks by the NHBPA are futile because “Congress, the Executive, and all three federal courts that have considered the amended Act have reached the same conclusion: HISA is now constitutional…

“Appellants' scattershot attempts to invalidate the Act on other grounds come up short, too,” the Authority's brief continued.

The NHBPA's Aug. 25 filing swatted back at those claims, citing a legal precedent that stated “it is a central tenet of liberty that the government may not…allow private individuals to regulate other private individuals.”

As the NHBPA put it, “That is now what happens every day in horseracing. The district court must be reversed, and the Act declared unconstitutional, again.”

The first time the HBPA plaintiffs attempted to challenge the original 2020 version of the HISA statute in federal court, on Mar. 15, 2021, the suit was dismissed, on March 31, 2022.

The HBPA plaintiffs then appealed, leading to the above-referenced Fifth Circuit Court reversal on Nov. 18, 2022, that remanded the case back to the lower court. In the interim, an amended version of HISA got passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Joe Biden on Dec. 29, 2022.

On May 4, 2023, the lower court deemed that the new version of HISA was constitutional because the rewrite of the law fixed the problems the Fifth Circuit had identified.

The HBPA plaintiffs then swiftly filed another appeal back to the Fifth Circuit, which is where the case stands now.

“The FTC and the Authority continue to tie themselves in knots trying to get around two obvious problems: the Act, even as revised, does not allow the FTC to amend or modify rules when they are proposed by the Authority,” the NHBPA's Aug. 25 filing stated. “And the Act, even as revised, still requires the FTC to approve rules written by the Authority on a consistency basis, which this Court held to be a violation of the private non-delegation doctrine.”

The NHBPA alleged in its filing that the Authority and the FTC's “solution to a lack of public accountability is to find an additional way to eliminate public accountability, making matters worse.”

The NHBPA's filing warned of dire ramifications to society in general if the Fifth Circuit doesn't declare the recently amended HISA law unconstitutional.

“If this Court ratifies this law, we will see more and more of our democracy slip away as Congress increasingly turns to this convenient charade of private self-regulatory corporations to govern entire industries,” the NHBPA's filing stated.

The post HBPA: ‘Best Of Both Worlds’ For HISA Is ‘Worst Of All Worlds’ For Horsemen appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

In addition, both the state and NYRA want to quash a motion for preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs initiated back on June 22 to try to halt any state money for the project from flowing to NYRA.

The Belmont renovation was approved back in May when the final New York state budget for fiscal year 2024 included the funding.

Belmont was last significantly updated in 1968, and the current, long-planned refurbishment is being undertaken with an eye toward consolidating all of NYRA's racing at Belmont and Saratoga Race Course, with the state-owned Aqueduct Racetrack property to eventually be sold.

“NYRA's motion to dismiss should be granted, the Court should issue a judgment in favor of Defendants declaring that the Belmont Legislation is constitutional, and the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice,” stated a memorandum of law that NYRA filed with the court Friday.

“As Plaintiffs claim fails as a matter of law and is not likely to succeed on the merits, and as the challenged appropriation to NYRA serves an important public interest and Plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm, or that the equities weigh in their favor, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied,” the NYRA filing continued.

The plaintiffs, Jannette Patterson and John Di Leonardo, each identified themselves in the initial complaint as a “citizen taxpayer of the State of New York who has paid, and is paying, New York State income and sales taxes.” They have asked for a judgment declaring that the state's loan to NYRA “would be an illegal and unconstitutional expenditure, misappropriation, misapplication, or disbursement of State funds.”

The defendants are the State of New York, the New York State Assembly, the New York State Senate, Governor Kathy Hochul, state comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, and NYRA.

NYRA's 30-page memorandum stated that the two plaintiffs “contend that the 'plain language' of the Gift and Loan Clause bars the State from appropriating any funds to NYRA.”

The Plaintiffs, however, are wrong “for at least two reasons,” NYRA argued.

“First, Plaintiffs' insistence upon a strict construction of the Gift and Loan Clause betrays an untenable, ostrich-like approach to settled law. Although one would not know it from Plaintiffs' papers, the Court of Appeals long ago ruled that the expenditure of public funds to a private entity is permissible under the Gift and Loan Clause if such expenditure serves a public purpose,” the filing continued.

“Moreover, the Court of Appeals and the Third Department have upheld financing arrangements for the construction and operation of sports venues and facilities that serve a public purpose, notwithstanding the co-existence of an incidental private benefit. Thus, the appropriation to NYRA authorized by the Belmont Legislation cannot be equated to an impermissible gift or loan under [the New York state constitution.],” the filing stated.

“Second, although at one point in their Complaint Plaintiffs correctly describe NYRA as a 'not-for-profit corporation that has the exclusive franchise to operate' Belmont Park, they otherwise refer to, and analyze, NYRA as though it is a run-of-the-mill 'private corporation' for purposes of the Gift and Loan Clause. In doing so, Plaintiffs yet again fail to reference, or even acknowledge, case law from both State and federal courts that uniformly holds that NYRA-as a State-franchisee that operates racing facilities owned by the State on public property pursuant to statute and regulation-is a 'state actor,'” the filing continued.

“In this regard, the funds received by NYRA will be used to renovate public property and facilities owned by the State. Put simply, NYRA-as a 'state actor'-is not the type of 'private corporation' that the Gift and Loan Clause was intended to cover,” the filing stated.

A separate Aug. 18 memorandum filed by the New York Attorney General's office on behalf of the state government defendants told the court that “Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they cannot make the required showing of irreparable harm. Plaintiffs urge the Court to maintain the status quo and halt the disbursement of funds so that their constitutional argument may be heard. But Plaintiffs' constitutional argument is meritless and there is no valid basis for the Court to preliminarily enjoin the Challenged Appropriation…”

The post NYRA, State Want Dismissal Of ‘Meritless’ Lawsuit To Block Belmont Renovation appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Apr. 6 order by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk (Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division) comes more than eight months after the litigation was initiated on July 29, 2022, and just one day after the plaintiffs in the Amarillo case asked for a temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of HISA.

The plaintiffs in the case are Global Gaming LSP, a limited liability company that owns Lone Star Park; Gulf Coast Racing LLC, the owner of a greyhound track that no longer conducts live racing in Nueces County, and both LRP Group Ltd. and Valle De Los Tesoros, which are two limited partnerships separately looking to operate new horse tracks in south Texas.

The defendants are the HISA Authority and the Federal Trade Commission.

“Here, Plaintiffs have asked for extraordinary relief in asking for a TRO and a preliminary injunction,” the judge wrote. “Aside from the merits, at issue in the TRO is whether [the] NHBPA [case's 30-day injunction out of the Lubbock Division] remains binding on Defendants.”

The judge outlined the chronology of the two cases that led to his decision.

“In November 2022 the Fifth Circuit held that HISA violated the private nondelegation doctrine [in the NHBPA appeal]. On Dec. 23, 2022, Congress enacted legislation amending the operative language of HISA to purportedly cure the constitutional defect. The amendment was signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 29. Defendants then filed a motion to vacate the Fifth Circuit panel opinion and a petition for panel rehearing. On Jan. 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit denied Defendants' motions and remanded the case to the Lubbock Division.”

The judge continued: “Because the Fifth Circuit remanded that case back to Lubbock, the Lubbock Division is in the best position to answer these questions. The issues raised by this case and the Lubbock Action substantially overlap. Both cases involve plaintiffs representing the horseracing industry. Both cases involve the same defendants. Both challenge the constitutionality of HISA. The proof adduced to resolve these claims will likely be identical. And the plaintiffs in both cases share the same ultimate objective.

“The Lubbock Action was filed more than a year before this case was filed and the Lubbock Division is much more familiar with the applicable law,” the judge's order continued. “Thus, the principles that underlie the first-to-file rule justify transferring this case to the Lubbock Division.

Quoting from precedents, the judge stated the legal basis for transferring the case.

“Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before two federal courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by the cases substantially overlap. The rule rests on principles of comity and sound judicial administration. The concern manifestly is to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.”

The post Judge Orders Gulf Coast vs. HISA Case Transferred To Same Division As NHBPA Suit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Fishman, who is currently imprisoned in Florida but appealing his 11-year sentence for two felony drug-supplying convictions in a decades-long international racehorse doping conspiracy, had stated in a Sept. 12 filing that the forfeiture order signed by the judge back on July 11 “is not authorized by statute and is therefore unlawful in its entirety.”

A response filing Sept. 30 by the legal team that successfully prosecuted Fishman stated that, “In arguing that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) does not authorize forfeiture, the defendant elevates form over substance, ignores past precedent, and, in so doing, deliberately misreads the FDCA and several applicable forfeiture provisions to reach the defendant's desired outcome of avoiding forfeiture altogether.”

The filing by the feds also noted that at the time of his sentencing, “then-counsel for Seth Fishman contended that he wished to contest the amount of the forfeiture money judgment, not the basis for forfeiture itself.”

But shortly after his sentencing date, Fishman hired a new lawyer who now “wishes to revisit the availability of forfeiture entirely.” That new legal tactic has no merit, prosecutors contended.

“The defendant's strained reading of the law provides no support for his view that forfeiture is 'unlawful' in this case,” the government attorneys wrote.

Forfeiture “is lawful and mandatory; consequently the Court's forfeiture order entered at Fishman's sentencing should be left undisturbed,” the prosecutors wrote.

“The defendant argues in passing that the Government has not demonstrated that Fishman 'actually acquired' any forfeitable property,” the feds wrote. “The evidence that Fishman, the owner-operator of [the drug company] Equestology, controlled the adulterated and misbranded drugs subject to the forfeiture action is undisputable. So long as the defendant had control over the forfeitable property, which he did, he has acquired that property…”

Fishman had argued otherwise, writing in the Sept. 12 filing that “Misbranding is not a forfeiture crime. The misbranding statute under which the government seeks forfeiture against Dr. Fishman…only permits the government to confiscate the misbranded or adulterated products themselves and any equipment used to manufacture those products.”

The post Feds Skewer Fishman’s Attempt to Avoid $13.5M Forfeiture appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

One of the suits challenging HISA's constitutionality was filed by the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA).

In March, United States District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix dismissed the suit finding that while HISA pushes boundaries of public-private collaboration, the law as constructed stays within the current constitutional limitation. The NHBPA subsequently filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The other federal lawsuit was filed by the state of Oklahoma in the United States District Court, Eastern Division of Kentucky. That case has yet to be adjudicated.

To get the skinny on the status of the two cases, along with the implications from the ruling in the HBPA case, TDN spoke with Bennett Liebman, government lawyer in residence at the Government Law Center of Albany Law School. He previously served as the deputy secretary for gaming and racing for Governor Andrew Cuomo and was a member of the state's Racing and Wagering Board.

The biggest takeaway from the conversation? Liebman said that a ruling from earlier in the week in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has essentially thrown HISA a curveball.

In short, the Fifth Circuit judges ruled that Congress' delegation of legislative power to the SEC was unconstitutional as it failed to “provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power.”

Substitute the SEC with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)–the government body given ultimate oversight over HISA–and the ruling has connotations for the HBPA case as it awaits adjudication before the Fifth Circuit, said Liebman.

TDN: Where do the two lawsuits currently stand?
   BL: The national HBPA case has been appealed to the 5th Circuit. The other case, the Oklahoma case, is still before the district court in Kentucky.

TDN: You mentioned there's a new ruling in the 5th Circuit that you say could prove very problematic for HISA. What is that case and why could it prove problematic?
BL: The Fifth Circuit in a decision in the case of Jarkesy versus the Security and Exchange Commission found that Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle under which the SEC could utilize its power. These powers have traditionally been regarded as constitutional.
Now, the delegation to HISA–what appears to be a non-government agency–is really broader than the delegation to the SEC. So, at least as far as the Fifth Circuit, which is generally considered to be the most conservative of the federal circuits, HISA's constitutionality is going to face a very, very difficult battle.
By this, I mean their delegation standard would be very, very difficult for the supporters of HISA to maintain. HISA's going to have an uphill fight in the Fifth circuit.

TDN: For people like me and some of our readers scratching our heads about the intelligible principle, could you just outline what the intelligible principle is, why it's important?
BL: Since 1928, the United States Supreme Court has said that while only Congress can make a law, Congress can also delegate its powers to the president and to administrative agencies. So long as there is an intelligible principle under which the president or the administrative authorities act, the delegation is valid. This standard has not been considered to be an onerous requirement. Since the Depression era, the Supreme Court has not struck down a statute for failure to state an intelligible principle.
Normally, in the horse racing world a delegation “in the best interest of horse racing” suffices at a governmental level to be an intelligible principle. But this [new ruling] is a very in-depth look at limiting delegations of authority [by Congress]. And it could, especially as it pertains to the HBPA case, prove problematic for HISA.

TDN: Essentially what you're saying is this ruling could act as a precedent as and when the Fifth Circuit adjudicates the HBPA's appeal?
BL: Yes, definitely. This is a very broad ruling basically limiting delegation by Congress to agencies, as well as to non-governmental agencies that are affiliated with [government] agencies, as HISA is with the FTC.
It really could prove troublesome for HISA. Other circuits might not agree. But at least at the Fifth Circuit level, this has now become a very difficult case for the supporters of HISA's constitutionality.

TDN: Could this prove the death knell for HISA? Or are there changes they can make to adjust, and sort of fix, its operating framework?
BL: They could try to make adjustments. Even if the [courts] do find HISA unconstitutional, they might be able to get a stay. They might try to find some way to move it to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. It's obviously not the death knell, but it's truly troublesome.

TDN: In regards the HBPA's appeal, what are some of the potential outcomes?
BL: They could affirm the trial court's decision. They could find it totally unconstitutional. They could find parts of it unconstitutional and sever those parts from the rest of the law. Look, the [Fifth Circuit] decision yesterday really is truly potentially very damaging to HISA. I don't think I can understate it.

TDN: Could either the SEC case or the HBPA case eventually go before the Supreme Court?
BL: They certainly could, and if they did, we might have a better understanding of the Supreme Court's view of the delegation of powers to administrative agencies and agencies like HISA.
The fact is, there's now a majority of Supreme Court justices that have come out against the intelligible principle test under which almost all delegations have been found constitutional for the last 85 years. And so, you know, you don't know what could come out of a Supreme Court review of HISA.

TDN: But again, are there fixes that can be made to HISA's structural framework?
BL: My thought was that even if the Supreme Court or a court of appeals found aspects of HISA unconstitutional, then it might be able to be fixed by certain legislative actions.
Right now, the FTC does not have power to promulgate its own rules on drugs and safety. You could give them [that] power. You could give the FTC power over the terms and ethics of the members of HISA. You could add more non-affiliated, independent members to the authority.
The other problem, of course, is we don't have a rational congressional system that could make these fixes that would keep HISA running. So, as always in the law, we just don't know what's going to happen next.

TDN: Does this ruling from yesterday or the prior decision in the HBPA's case have any impact on the Oklahoma case?
BL: The Kentucky court looking at the Oklahoma case could certainly cite the lower court decision in the HBPA case and use that as a precedent for upholding HISA. I don't think they would go into the Fifth Circuit's decision on the Securities and Exchange Commission.

TDN: Has a date been set for the appeal hearing by the 5th Circuit?
BL: Not that I can determine. I'm restricted to a very limited review of documents that have been submitted. I mean, the parties to the case would know what's going on.

TDN: Prior to the SEC ruling this week, which of the two cases, the Oklahoma case or the HBPA case, did you think was more likely to go before the Supreme Court?
BL: It had looked as if the Oklahoma case was perhaps the more significant case. Look at all the parties involved in that case, including all the amicus curiae briefs submitted by everybody, from the sponsors of the legislation, the Jockey Club, prominent owners, prominent breeders, against on the other side a ton of states and the United States Trotting Association. I had thought that there would be more significant legal interest in the Oklahoma case.
I think I pointed out in the speech I gave to the ARCI that the name of the case was Oklahoma against the United States, but that there were actually more parties in that case than there are characters in the musical, Oklahoma.

TDN: But now you're saying all bets are off thanks to yesterday's ruling?
BL: Yes. I mean, as far as I can see this is really a major decision by the Fifth Circuit on the limits of how Congress goes about apportioning power to administrative agencies.

TDN: As you had said earlier, the current makeup of the Supreme Court is such that there…
BL: There is a majority that have at various points rejected–and that doesn't include justice [Amy Coney] Barrett–the reliance on the intelligible principle standard. But will they go as far as the Fifth Circuit? Who knows?

TDN: If they did, this could all take years to play out though, right? What happens to HISA in the meantime?
BL: Oh God, who knows? It's law; it's not something you should bet on.

The post Bennett Liebman: New Fifth Circuit Ruling ‘Uphill Fight’ for HISA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Because of overlapping uses of the term “appeal,” it has grown difficult to keep track of the status of what has now escalated to Baffert and owner Amr Zedan's intertwined administrative and legal cases against the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC).

At the commission level, Baffert and Zedan have already appealed the KHRC's penalties (the suspension and a $7,500 fine for Baffert, plus the forfeiture of Zedan's purse winnings from the Derby) that were handed down Feb. 21 in the wake of now-deceased Medina Spirit's betamethasone positive in last year's Derby.

But when a routine request to stay those penalties (pending the outcome of the commission-level appeal) was denied by the KHRC Feb. 25, Baffert and Zedan took the matter to Franklin Circuit Court Feb. 28.

A Franklin Circuit Court judge Mar. 21 rejected Baffert and Zedan's plea for a stay or temporary injunction to keep the penalties from going into effect, so the trainer and owner bumped up their request to the next legal level, the Court of Appeals, Mar. 24.

On Mar. 25, the Court of Appeals judge raised the out-of-the-blue issue of whether the underlying Franklin Court appeal originated in the correct venue in the first place.

As Downey reported, the question drills down to: Should the case have originally been heard in Jefferson County (specifically Louisville, where the Derby itself is run), Fayette County (Lexington, where the KHRC's offices are headquartered), or Franklin County (Frankfort, where the Kentucky Public Protection Cabinet, the KHRC's parent organization, is housed)?

Even if Baffert prevails in this Court of Appeals attempt, he is still barred from having horses qualify for and run in the Derby based on a separate, private-party prohibition issued by the gaming corporation that owns Churchill Downs.

But Baffert is also fighting that banishment in federal court even while contingently transferring his Derby contenders to other trainers so they can try and earn qualifying points and enter the Derby.

The post More Confusion Added to Baffert Appeal Process appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Ward brought suit against the Ramseys for unpaid bills in March of this year, claiming he was owed $974,790.40, which included training bills, purses, and interest. Around the same time, trainer Mike Maker also sued the couple for $905,357.29 in unpaid bills. Maker settled his case in September, with the terms of settlement undisclosed.

Ward had filed a motion in early December week seeking to be allowed to sell the horses, pointing out that he had filed agister's liens on them and obtained a warrant enforcing those liens. In March, Ward secured liens against a total of 44 Ramsey horses who contributed to the outstanding bills. According to court documents, Ward has sold a number of the horses who racked up the bills at public auction or via claiming and the 14 that remain are the only ones Ward still has in his barn.

Ramsey's attorney filed an emergency motion one day after the 14 were supplemented to the Keeneland January sale, requesting the judge vacate his order for sale, on the basis that the sale would cause “permanent and irreparable damage to Defendants that will not be made whole by mere money.”

“Following entry of the Court's order of sale, the supplement to the Keeneland January 2021 Horses of All Ages Sale has been released. It does not include the horses which are the subject of the Court's order of sale, which means the horses, their pedigrees, and past performances will not appear either in the catalog or the supplement for the sale,” the emergency order stated. “As a result, permitting the horses to be sold under such circumstances will cause substantial damages to Defendants.”

Ramsey's attorney Mike Meuser told bloodhorse.com that all 14 horses will be sent to another trainer in Florida.

Read more at bloodhorse.com.

The post Judge Vacates Order To Sell Ramsey Horses At Keeneland; Owner Places Over $1 Million In Escrow For Ward Suit appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

The latest legal salvo, fired Dec. 17 by prosecutors in the form of a letter, comes three days before Fishman's Dec. 20 bail revocation hearing in United States District Court (Southern District of New York).

This latest plot twist in the case began Dec. 6, when prosecutors told the judge that Fishman's administrative assistant permitted Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to search her workplace, and the search allegedly yielded evidence that Fishman is still selling drugs.

One week later, Fishman replied with a court filing of his own that stated that employee “had little choice but to succumb to the demand by agents that they be permitted to search the premises” because at the time her consent to the search was obtained “she was at risk of prosecution for the very offenses with which Dr. Fishman was charged.”

Friday's new filing made three points:

“First, Fishman attempts to justify his continued manufacture of drugs by claiming a 'good faith' effort to meet the requirements of the 'export exemption' set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 381(e),” the Dec. 17 filing stated.

“Second, the defendant suggests that the Government has implicitly condoned his ongoing criminal activity insofar as Fishman and/or his former counsel have claimed that Fishman holds an intention to continue his drug sales in conformity with the foreign sales exemption of 21 U.S.C. § 381(e),” the filing stated.

“Finally, the Government notes that Fishman points to no authority for the proposition that a proffering witness cannot provide voluntary consent to a search,” the filing stated.

Fishman is charged with two felony counts related to drug alteration, misbranding, and conspiring to defraud the government. His trial is tentatively expected to start in mid-January.

The post Feds, Fishman Spar in Bail Revocation Hearing appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post