Q and A With Lucinda Finley: A Lot Rests on Pending Fifth Circuit HISA Ruling

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans heard oral arguments in a pivotal case—led by the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA)—seeking to overturn the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) on grounds that it is constitutionally flawed.

In short, the Fifth Circuit's pending ruling could have profound implications for the short and long-term future of the federal law.

Oral arguments in the Fifth Circuit follow a key decision earlier this year out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, finding the HISA statute indeed to be constitutional.

There is also a separate HISA-related case in the Eighth Circuit led by Bill Walmsley, Jon Moss, and the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA) for Iowa.

To get a handle on the various implications from the pending Fifth Circuit ruling, the TDN once again spoke with constitutional law expert Lucinda Finley, Frank Raichle Professor of Trial and Appellate Advocacy, and director of Appellate Advocacy at the University of Buffalo Law School.

The following has been edited for brevity and clarity.

TDN: When is the Fifth Circuit likely to issue its ruling?

Lucinda Finley: It could be within a month. It could be up to several months. It's very hard to tell how long a court will take in ruling on an appeal. They don't have any deadline.

TDN: Can we glean any kind of meaning on how they might rule from the length of time it takes to deliver that ruling?

LF: In general in federal appellate cases, the length of time that it takes for a ruling to come out can vary by several factors. One is how many other opinions still to be issued are backlogged in the court. Another is whether there's disagreement within the panel of three judges. Is there going to be a dissent? Is there going to be a concurring opinion?

So, if there's going to be more than one unanimous majority opinion, it'll obviously take longer for the final result to be issued because multiple judges will be writing opinions and perhaps circulating their drafts amongst each other, trying to persuade someone to modify their position.

TDN: How do you think the Fifth Circuit will rule?

LF: I can't predict. I have no basis to make a prediction.

TDN: Are you able to look at any other of their rulings as a potential barometer?

LF: No. I mean, it's really going to come down to whether they agree with the Sixth Circuit that the changes congress made to give the [Federal Trade Commission] more rulemaking authority are sufficient to fix the constitutional problem that the Fifth Circuit previously identified.

TDN: What are the implications from the pending Fifth Circuit ruling for HISA?

LF: If the Fifth Circuit agrees with the Sixth Circuit and finds that the current amended version of HISA is constitutional, that makes it much less likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the cases because there would not be a conflicting view between different U.S. circuit courts of appeals about the constitutionality of the federal statute.

Conversely, if the Fifth Circuit disagrees with the Sixth Circuit and finds that the amendments that Congress made are not sufficient to make the law constitutional, that makes it close to a hundred percent likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the cases.

Having two different circuit courts in the country saying the same federal statute is and is not constitutional is not a situation that's tenable. The U.S. Supreme Court would have to resolve that one.

(Have an opinion? Vote by clicking on the question below.)

TDN: Just yesterday, the former president of the National HBPA said that no matter how the Fifth Circuit rules, the nation's highest court will eventually have to be called upon to settle the matter. Sounds like it's not that simple.

LF: Let me back up.

You currently have the Sixth Circuit already having ruled that the HISA statute is constitutional. You have the Fifth Circuit having heard oral arguments. A decision will come within the next few months.

You also have the Eighth Circuit considering the constitutional question, the briefs of the challengers already having been filed and the briefs of the FTC and the defenders of HISA yet to be filed. So, you have three circuit courts being asked to consider the constitutionality of HISA.

If all three of them wind up agreeing that HISA as currently written is constitutional, I don't think it's likely that the Supreme Court would hear the case.

[But] if the circuit courts disagree about the constitutionality piece, as I said, I think that makes it close to a hundred percent likely that the Supreme Court would take the case.

TDN: What are the implications (either way) from the pending Fifth Circuit ruling for those jurisdictions currently operating outside of HISA's remit, like Louisiana and West Virginia?

LF: If the Fifth Circuit rules the same way that the Sixth Circuit did and finds that HISA as amended is now constitutional, that would mean that the lower court injunctions against the enforcement of HISA in certain states would most likely be dissolved and would go away.

If the Fifth Circuit rules that even the amendments to HISA are not sufficient to make it constitutional, that would mean the injunctions against enforcing HISA in certain states would remain in effect until the Supreme Court resolves the differences of opinions between the federal circuit courts.

TDN: Does this case hold other implications at the Supreme Court level for critics of the federal administrative state?

LF: In the current term of the Supreme Court, they've just taken several cases that raise challenges to decades old, well-established administrative law precedents.

There seems to be a lot of interest in the current U.S. Supreme Court of turning administrative law on its head and reining in the authority of the federal regulatory agencies in various ways. The non-delegation doctrines that are at the heart of the challenges to HISA have not yet been the areas of administrative law that the Supreme Court seems focused on upending of changing.

But they might—if they completely change the areas of administrative law they've agreed to consider this year—maybe next year say, 'okay, we got rid of the Chevron deference doctrine, we got rid of certain other things. Now let's go after the non-delegation doctrine.'

It's a long way of saying the current U.S. Supreme Court is showing great interest in rethinking decades of rules about the authority of federal regulatory agencies.

TDN: Could this focus of the Supreme Court have any bearing on the way in which the Fifth Circuit rules?

LF: I don't think judges rule in a particular way on a case strategically in order just to get it to go to Supreme Court. I think judges rule on cases based on what they think the law is.

The Fifth Circuit is the most dominated right now of all the circuits by judges who were appointed by the Trump administration with the imprimatur of the Federalist Society, which has long had as its goal to get judges on the appellate federal courts that want to rein in the regulatory state.

The Fifth Circuit is known as the most conservative circuit in terms of what it might mean these days to be a conservative, in the legal sense. Being skeptical of giving broad discretionary authority to make rules to agencies as opposed to congress is one of the aim of being a legal conservative.

As I've told you in previous conversations, there were clearly lawyers strategizing by the opponents of HISA about what states and therefore what federal circuits they filed their challenges in.

They filed them in parts of the country that go to circuit courts that they considered tilting conservative. They didn't file them in areas of the country like New York or Chicago where they think the circuit courts are not considered to be tilted conservative.

TDN: What are the implications from the pending Fifth Circuit ruling for the other HISA-related suits? 

LF: Well, neither the Sixth Circuit ruling nor the Fifth Circuit ruling would be binding precedent on the eighth circuit. They're just persuasive views.

If you're the eighth circuit and you've got two other circuits who agree on the constitutionality of the statute, then reading the tea leaves, that makes it more likely the eighth circuit would also agree.

If you're the eighth circuit and you've got two other federal circuits that have completely different views, you might just kind of sit on the case for a while and wait to see if the Supreme Court takes up the matter and let the Supreme Court decide on its constitutionality.

TDN: Which gets back to your earlier point—a lot rests on this Fifth Circuit ruling.

LF: Yes. Whether the Fifth Circuit will rule the same as the Sixth or differently from the Sixth is basically everything. What happens next is going to rest completely on that.

TDN: Do you see the pending Fifth Circuit ruling having any bearing on the relative success or failure of the proposed federal legislation to repeal HISA and replace it with a voluntary interstate compact to govern the nation's Thoroughbred, Standardbred, and Quarter Horse racing?

LF: That's an interesting question. Interesting, because right now we basically don't have a functioning congress. Who knows how long it will be before we have a functioning congress.

Right now, no federal legislation is going anywhere. But I guess my personal view is that there won't be any strong majority push in congress to come up with something different unless the U.S. Supreme Court says HISA is unconstitutional.

The post Q and A With Lucinda Finley: A Lot Rests on Pending Fifth Circuit HISA Ruling appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Mount Fee Increase For All Kentucky Racetracks

The Jockeys' Guild has reached an agreement with the Kentucky HBPA and the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association on a mount fee increase effective Nov. 29, which is opening day of the Turfway Park Holiday meet, the organization said in a release Wednesday.

The mount fee schedule calls for a minimum fee of $125 at all Kentucky racetracks, including Churchill Downs, Keeneland, Ellis Park, Kentucky Downs and Turfway Park. This agreement also provides for $500 minimum fee in races with purses of $1 million or more.

“On behalf of our members who ride in Kentucky, I would like to thank the Kentucky HBPA and the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association for working with the Guild to reach this agreement,” said Terry Meyocks, President and CEO of Jockeys' Guild. “Special thanks to Senator Damon Thayer, for his assistance in reaching this agreement. Without his support, it would not have been accomplished.”

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission's Rules Committee passed Oct. 4 a unanimous motion recommending this scale to the full commission for consideration and anticipated approval. Once approved, the proposed amendment to the administrative regulation will be filed with the Legislative Research Commission to follow the rule making process and allow for written and public comment. The agreements with the Kentucky HBPA and the KTA will remain in effect until the regulation has been formally adopted, which will likely be next year.

“I was pleased to advocate for a pay increase for the jockeys,” said Sen. Damon Thayer, Majority Leader of the Kentucky Senate. “Those who risk their lives every day at our tracks should be paid a fee commensurate with Kentucky's position of having the top purses in North America. In particular, I would like to thank trainer Dale Romans as a leader in the KHBPA, for facilitating in reaching the agreement and to Commissioner Charlie O'Connor for his role at the Commission in moving forward with the adoption of the new regulation.”

The post Mount Fee Increase For All Kentucky Racetracks appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HBPA: Negotiations Between HISA And Sales Companies Equate To ‘Preferential Treatment’ For Breeders

Two days after the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) Authority disclosed at a press conference last week that it had initiated discussions with sales companies in an attempt to bring about voluntary compliance with medication policies throughout the lifetimes of Thoroughbreds, the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA) went on record with a letter filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit alleging that those efforts equate to improper rulemaking by the Authority and “preferential treatment” for breeders.

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

Judge Halts Anti-HISA Suit in Louisiana Pending Outcome of HBPA Case in U.S. Appeals Court

A federal judge has stayed a 14-month-old lawsuit initiated by the states of Louisiana and West Virginia that is trying to wipe out the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) via alleged constitutional violations, ordering the case to be “administratively terminated” until the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals makes a ruling in a separate suit in which the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA) is also alleging HISA is unconstitutional.

However, U.S. District Court (Western District of Louisiana) Chief Judge Terry Doughty wrote in his Sept. 14 ruling that, “This Order shall not be considered a dismissal or disposition of this matter,” and that he was halting the case while the Fifth Circuit decision played out “without prejudice to the right of the parties to reopen the proceedings.”

This means the plaintiffs (the two states are joined by the Louisiana racing commission, the Louisiana HBPA, the Louisiana Thoroughbred Breeders Association, West Virginia's racing commission, and five individuals regulated as “covered persons” under HISA) and the defendants (the HISA Authority, the Federal Trade Commission [FTC], plus overseers of both entities) must now await the decision–likely to be issued months from now–that will result from the Fifth Circuit oral arguments scheduled Oct. 4.

In 2 1/2 weeks, the National HBPA and 12 of its affiliates will be trying to prove claims that the 2022 rewrite of the HISA law remains “patently unconstitutional,” and that the Authority overseeing the sport “is basically a private police department” whose sweeping powers equate to “oligarchic tyranny.”

The HISA Authority and the FTC will go into those same arguments backed by a lower court's opinion issued in May that ruled HISA is indeed constitutional, because “Congress cured the unconstitutional aspects of HISA's original approach.”

It's also on the judicial record that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of HISA back in March.

One day prior to Judge Doughty's ruling, Magistrate Judge David Ayo wrote in a report that recommended staying the Louisiana case that the multiple, overlapping anti-HISA lawsuits currently swirling in the court system are clogging federal dockets.

“After an exhaustive review of the landscape of suits challenging the Act, this Court concludes that [an amended complaint the plaintiffs had filed] is the result of deliberate strategy” that equated to “an abuse of procedure and an impermissible use of judicial resources,” Judge Ayo wrote in his Sept. 13 report.

The original lawsuit in this case was filed June 29, 2022, alleging that HISA violates the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plus the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

The post Judge Halts Anti-HISA Suit in Louisiana Pending Outcome of HBPA Case in U.S. Appeals Court appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights