Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act Authority | Horse Racing Free Tips

The legal rabbit hole deepened on Tuesday in one of four lawsuits designed to derail the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act Authority (HISA), pulling jockeys Drayden Van Dyke, Miguel Vazquez and Edwin Gonzalez into the fray as plaintiffs alleged new harms resulting from rule enforcement they believe is in contempt of a court order.

Plaintiffs led by Louisiana, West Virginia, and the Jockeys' Guild moved for a federal judge to issue an immediate order to enforce its July 26 injunction to keep Guild-member jockeys from being subject to HISA rules nationwide. The plaintiffs also want the judge to make the HISA defendants explain to the court why they should not be held in contempt for “flagrantly violating this Court's injunction within a mere four days after this Court entered it.”

A series of filings Aug. 2 in United States District Court (Western District of Louisiana) centers on different interpretations the two sides have regarding what Judge Terry Doughty meant when he wrote in that July 26 injunction that, “The geographic scope of the injunction shall be limited to the states of Louisiana and West Virginia, and as to all Plaintiffs in this proceeding.”

The plaintiffs-most specifically, the Guild-believe the judge's words apply to “all of the members of the Jockeys' Guild, regardless of the U.S. jurisdiction in which the jockey is riding.”

The HISA defendants have steadfastly maintained that individual members of the Guild are clearly not plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and to consider them that way “would wreak havoc on the sport. For example, many jockeys are not Guild members, such that different rules would apply to jockeys riding in the same race.”

Separately, the defendants have made a formal motion asking for a clarification of the wording in the injunction, but the court docket indicates the judge might not offer one until next week, unless Doughty opts to expedite the matter.

And beyond that, the defendants' appeal of their turned-down request to put a stay on the entirety of the July 26 preliminary injunction is headed for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Confused yet? There's more. This case is only one of four lawsuits initiated at the federal level this year to keep HISA rules from going into effect nationwide. The first two got tossed out by judges but are in the process of being appealed. The fourth just got filed on Monday in a Texas court.

According to Tuesday's filings, Guild-member jockeys Van Dyke, Vazquez and Gonzalez are just the first three jockeys that the plaintiffs believe are being harmed by the allegedly contemptuous enforcement of HISA safety rules.

“Though the ink has not yet dried on this Court's order preliminarily enjoining Defendants from enforcing HISA's unlawful rules, some Defendants have already decided that they need not follow the Order,” the filing stated. “[D]espite the Order's plain text, the Authority Defendants continue to implement and enforce the enjoined rules against members of Plaintiff Jockeys' Guild.”

According to the filings, on July 27, one day after the allegedly unclear order was issued, a HISA spokesperson stated that “HISA will continue to enforce its rules in all applicable jurisdictions, with the exception of Louisiana and West Virginia. Outside of those states, the court order applies only to the five individuals specifically named in the case.”

And on July 29, the filings stated, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) put out an advisory that stated, “Unless and until a federal court clarifies an earlier ruling by indicating otherwise, the CHRB will continue to honor its agreement with HISA by enforcing HISA safety rules, including the rules covering use of the riding crop, as the CHRB has been doing since HISA rules went into effect on July 1.”

Then on July 30, Del Mar stewards issued a ruling against Van Dyke for his use of the riding crop in a July 29 race that they deemed to be in violation of HISA Rule 2280, imposing a $250 fine and one-day suspension.

“The suspension is set to preclude Mr. Van Dyke from racing on Aug. 6, but he must confirm participation on Aug. 3 for that race day,” Tuesday's filing stated. “To be clear, Mr. Van Dyke is a member of Plaintiff Jockeys' Guild and thus Defendants are enjoined from implementing and enforcing the enjoined Racetrack Safety Rules against Mr. Van Dyke.”

The filing continued: “Compounding this problem, over the weekend, Plaintiffs were informed that the HISA stewards at Gulfstream Park in Hallandale, Florida plan to issue multiple rulings against members of Plaintiff Jockeys' Guild for similar violations.”

For actions during July 31 races, the filing stated, “HISA stewards intend to issue written rulings on Aug. 5 against Miguel Vazquez [for] a violation of enjoined HISA Rule 2280 that prohibits a jockey from raising his wrist above a certain point before striking a horse with his riding crop; and Edwin Gonzalez for a violation of enjoined HISA Rule 2280 for a different riding crop violation.”

Both Gulfstream jockeys are expected to receive fines of $250 each, one-day suspensions, and points to escalate penalties for subsequent violations.

“Through these continued enforcement actions, the Authority Defendants thus have made clear that they seek to enforce enjoined rules against Plaintiffs' members throughout the country outside of Louisiana and West Virginia,” the plaintiffs' filing stated.

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to award compensatory damages to cover the allegedly lost purse earnings that the above three riders will incur, plus a “coercive fine of $250 per day for each day any points assessed…as a result of HISA's contempt are not purged from their records.”

The Guild-backed plaintiffs also want those damages to apply to any other Guild members who get subsequently penalized while this issue is contested in the courts.

With regard to how the judge might rule in his clarification of the injunction, the plaintiffs noted in court documents that “nearly 50 years of Supreme Court case law” is on their side, because precedents confirm that “members of associations are entitled to the benefits that their associations obtain in litigation.”

In the overall lawsuit, the HISA Authority, the Federal Trade Commission, and board members and overseers of both entities are alleged to have violated the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, plus the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. An adverse ruling against the defendants could mean a reopening of public commentary periods and a rewrite of all existing and in-the-pipeline HISA rules.

The post Three Jockeys to Become Test for Contested HISA Enforcement appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The plaintiff states of Louisiana and West Virginia won a preliminary injunction in federal court Tuesday that will keep the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) Authority's rules from being implemented in those two states until a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of HISA gets decided in full.

“This court believes the threatened harm to Plaintiffs outweighs any harm that may result to the Defendants and that a preliminary injunction will not undermine the public interest,” wrote Judge Terry Doughty of U.S. District Court (Western District of Louisiana).

“This Court is only ruling on the adoption of the rules by HISA, not the constitutionality of the Act,” Doughty was quick to add.

“The geographic scope of the injunction shall be limited to the states of Louisiana and West Virginia, and as to all Plaintiffs in this proceeding,” Doughty wrote.

The defendants, who consist of the HISA Authority, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and board members and overseers of both entities, are alleged in the June 29 suit to have violated the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plus the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Lisa Lazarus, the chief executive officer of the HISA Authority, told TDN in an emailed statement that read, in part, “[Tuesday's] ruling from the Western District of Louisiana relates only to the FTC rules, is limited in geographic scope to Louisiana and West Virginia…and does not question HISA's constitutionality or validity. The Authority remains focused on implementing the Racetrack Safety program and drafting Anti-Doping and Medication Control rules for implementation in January 2023….

“The reality is that the majority of racing participants support the Authority's mission to protect those who play by the rules and hold those who fail to do so accountable in order to keep our equine and human athletes safe and the competition fair. The immense collaboration with state racing commissions, stewards, veterinarians, racetracks, trainers, and other horsemen that has taken place to date is evidence of this support, and we intend to continue to fulfill our mandate and work to make the industry safer,” Lazarus continued.

The plaintiffs, led by the states of Louisiana and West Virginia, plus the Jockeys' Guild and various Louisiana-based “covered persons” under HISA rules, had told the judge that it was imperative to obtain an injunction before the case winds its way through the legal system, lest they be exposed to the alleged harms of the rules. These types of federal court cases can often linger in the legal system for years without resolution.

In a 28-page memorandum explaining his ruling, Doughty noted that two civil suits attempting to get HISA struck down based on alleged unconstitutionality have already failed in federal courts and are currently pending appeal, and that those suits shared some common plaintiffs with the case that is now before his court.

But a key difference, Doughty wrote, is that, “This suit is the third attempt at stopping enforcement of HISA but the first to address the legality of the rules enacted.”

Doughty wrote that he first had to determine whether his court has judicial power to hear this case under the doctrine of “standing.” A federal court has judicial power only where a plaintiff has demonstrated that it 1) suffered an injury in fact; 2) is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and 3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing those three elements.

Once the first phase of rules (covering racetrack safety, enforcement, and financial assessment methodology) went into effect July 1, Doughty wrote “All Plaintiffs allege they will suffer injuries 'in the form of vast destruction of the horseracing industry through individual penalties and systematic changes to the longstanding regulatory structure and revenue model. They argue that there will be financial costs so great that numerous participants will be driven out of business if the rules are enforced.”

On the other side, Doughty wrote, “Defendants argue there is no injury to Plaintiffs because 1) none of the alleged injuries have 'transpired over the two weeks in which the rules have already been in effect'; 2) the harms are self-inflicted under the rules; 3) there is not a challenge to the Act's scope; 4) the injuries derive from the Act enacted by Congress itself, not any of the implemented rules, and 5) the mere apprehension or fear of future harm does not establish a concrete injury.”

Doughty reconciled those conflicting viewpoints this way: “The applicable time period under this element is not whether the injury has occurred since the implementation of the rules, but whether it was imminent at the time the complaint was filed. While Defendants' argument that the injuries have not occurred and that the private Plaintiffs' fear of future injury might go to the success on the merits, they do not negate Plaintiffs' standing. Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of government action and are objects of said action. All Plaintiffs are participants in the horseracing industry, making them directly affected by regulation actions.”

Doughty wrote that the “fairly traceable” link requirement was straightforwardly accomplished by the plaintiffs.

“Here, there is an obvious link between the HISA rules and Plaintiffs' alleged injuries,” Doughty wrote. “All the above alleged injuries are 'fairly traceable' to the rules enacted thus far by HISA and the FTC.”

The plaintiffs also had to prove the “redressability element of standing,” which requires demonstrating “a substantial likelihood” that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury.

“Because Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of government action in the form of HISA and the FTC approving and implementing rules, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the requested relief would remedy the alleged injuries in fact,” Doughty wrote. “If Plaintiffs are successful in having the HISA rules declared invalid, this would redress their alleged injuries.”

At a later point in the memorandum, Doughty wrote that “Obtaining a preliminary injunction is an 'extraordinary and drastic remedy'” that a movant is only entitled to if four factors are established.

They are: 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 2) the movant is likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; 3) the possible injury to the movant outweighs the possible harm to the other party, and 4) an injunction is in the public interest.

“Plaintiffs have satisfied all four elements required for a preliminary injunction to be issued. After considering all factors, this Court has determined that a preliminary injunction shall be issued by Plaintiffs against the Defendants,” Doughty wrote.

The injunction shall be in effect, Doughty wrote, “pending the final resolution of this case,” adding that the final ruling could extend all the way up to an appeal before the United States Supreme Court.

The post Injunction Halts HISA Rules, But Only in Louisiana and West Virginia appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post