“We’re Back in the Courts” : Finley on What’s Next for HISA

With Congress passing a short-term bill to fund the government for a matter of days, efforts to include in the full-year omnibus spending bill a legislative fix to the constitutional problems dogging the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) is coming down to the crunch, Friday of next week the deadline to pass such a bill before the make-up of Congress changes shape next year.

So, where does this all leave HISA? The answer resembles a puzzle box shaken onto the floor, with HISA offering limited direction as to how all the pieces fit together.

On Monday, after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had disapproved “without prejudice” the program's anti-doping and medication control (ADMC) rules, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus–someone who has consistently and admirably fielded public queries–provided some useful insights during an impromptu press conference, especially when it comes to money matters.

Since then, however, HISA has been a closed shop.

“The HISA legal team is exploring all possible legal paths forward. Once we determine the best path to protect the integrity and safety of Thoroughbred racing and its participants we will share those plans,” wrote HISA spokesperson, Mandy Minger, after multiple attempts for comment on a series of questions.

And so, the TDN turned once again to constitutional law expert, Lucinda Finley, for her thoughts on the various winding roads leading away from the Act's current crossroads. There are three important cases to note:

One is the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found in November that the law as written doesn't afford the FTC enough authority in the rule-making process. If HISA fails to get a stay on the ruling, the decision will go into effect Jan. 10.

The second is a ruling pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning similar constitutional questions to the Fifth Circuit. It is currently unclear when that ruling will land.

The third is a case in the U.S. District Court of Texas–Northern District, Amarillo Division–which raises several constitutional problems with the law, other than FTC rule-making input.

There is also a fourth HISA-related lawsuit initiated by the states of Louisiana and West Virginia, plus the Jockeys' Guild, but there has been no filing activity in that case since Sept. 7.

Is there a key takeaway from the current state of affairs?

Even if Congress does pass language in the omnibus spending bill fixing the problems raised by the Fifth Circuit–in other words, to cede the FTC greater rule-making authority–don't expect the legal fireworks to simmer down, warned Finley.

“We're back in the courts,” Finley said, pinpointing the case before the Amarillo Federal Court as a potentially nasty looking legal blackthorn for HISA.

No Legislative Fix

Let's begin with the scenario that lawmakers fail to insert language to amend HISA into the year-end omnibus spending bill.

Should that happen, a future legislative fix would be unlikely for months, if not a year, due to a looming political environmental where Congress is unlikely to tackle legislation other than what “it absolutely has to act on,” warned Finley.

“What's likely to happen come January when the new Congress is sworn in, the House is going to suddenly be consumed with all these investigations,” said Finley, about the future Republican-led Congress' promise to pursue investigations into Hunter Biden and others. “I don't expect that there will be much in the way of any legislative activity on anything in the first many months.”

With the FTC disapproving HISA's ADMC rules, the current status-quo will remain in effect come Jan. 1–a hybrid world of HISA racetrack safety rules applied alongside individual state medication regulations.

If HISA is unable to get a stay on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the decision will go into effect Jan. 10.

The question then is: How applicable is the ruling? National? Or just in the states that fall under the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction, namely Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.

“HISA is not commenting on legal hypotheticals or speculating on how the ruling might be applied,” wrote Minger, when pressed to provide a clear answer.

According to Finley, the Fifth Circuit ruling applies only in those three states. However, she believes it would be “extremely prudent” for HISA to suspend the racetrack safety rules if indeed a stay is not found on the Fifth Circuit ruling, due to the likelihood of litigation by any sanctioned parties.

“As a practical matter,” said Finley, “it does tie their hands everywhere.”

Failure to gain a legislative fix in the near-term would also place emphasis on the Sixth Circuit's pending ruling.

Should the three-person panel of Sixth Circuit judges rule consistently with the Fifth Circuit, then it is unlikely the Supreme Court would take up the case, given the harmony in Circuit Court decisions.

In other words, there would be no judicial dispute for the Supreme Court to resolve.

A Sixth Circuit ruling favorable to HISA–and in opposition to the Fifth Circuit ruling–would make it more likely the Supreme Court would hear the case, however.

If petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed in both cases–these are the legal devices with which to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of a case–then that court could grant certiorari in one or both.

As for a possible timeframe, if petitions are filed in the spring of 2023 and the Supreme Court decides to review the case, then a final decision might not come until June of 2024.

A Successful Legislative Fix

But let's run with the scenario that next week, lawmakers indeed insert language into the year-end spending bill that affords the FTC greater law-making authority. What then?

First off, HISA could resubmit the ADMC rules with the FTC. It would then take approximately 60 days for these rules to go into effect, “assuming that the FTC was going to approve them substantively,” Lazarus explained, last Monday.

Secondly, it would essentially render the current cases before the Fifth and Sixth Circuits legally moot in a practical sense, and would make the possibility of the Supreme Court taking them up altogether highly unlikely.

Which brings us to the case before the Amarillo Federal Court.

That case raises several additional constitutional arguments that the Fifth and Sixth Circuits did not rule on, including HISA's investigative, subpoena and punishment power as a private body, and the way in which individuals on the HISA board are appointed, said Finley.

“It argues that the whole structure is a delegation of not only too much executive authority, but can amount to a delegation of legislative and judicial authority as well,” Finley explained.

What's more, the district court judge in question, Matthew Kacsmaryk, is one of the “most extreme right-wing” of President Trump's appointed judges.

This leads to an important legal wrinkle in this case with potentially huge implications for HISA.

If judge Kacsmaryk agrees that HISA indeed delegates too much power to a private entity, the plaintiffs in the case are seeking an injunction to suspend enforcement of the law, said Finley.

Would such an injunction apply nationwide or just in Texas?

“You've actually asked what is one of the most raging controversies in U.S. law,” Finley replied. “It used to be extremely rare for a district court federal judge to enjoin the enforcement of a statute or regulatory scheme throughout the whole country,” she said. “They would traditionally just issue an injunction that pertained to the parties in the case.”

Come President Obama's tenure, however, “Republican state attorneys general started suing to stop various programs that the Obama administration wanted to implement. They went to what they thought were favorable district courts, and they started asking them to issue a nationwide injunction saying, 'Look judge, if the statute is unconstitutional or the rules are in violation of federal law, well, we shouldn't allow them to go into effect anywhere,'” explained Finley.

“And judges started buying this argument,” Finley added, explaining that during the Biden administration, Republican attorneys general have attempted to introduce in U.S. district courts nationwide injunctions on cases related to vaccine mandates and immigration rules.

“Groups that want to challenge whatever federal statute or regulatory scheme know what judges they can get their case before to maximize their chances of getting the statute declared unconstitutional, and with a nationwide injunction,” said Finley. “This judge in Amarillo is one of them.”

It appears likely the case currently before the Amarillo Federal Court will end up before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals–and then, potentially, the Supreme Court.

“You could get a very different panel,” Finley responded, when asked which way the Fifth Circuit would rule in that case. “But looming over any subsequent appeal to the Fifth Circuit is the fact that it already found a significant part of the [HISA] statute to be unconstitutional.”

The Horizon?

Finley suspects that if HISA's proponents remain firmly resolved to the pursuit of uniformity through a federal body, ongoing legal challenges to HISA might ultimately lead to an end point even more unpalatable to the law's critics–a governmental commission insulated from industry wants and concerns.

“This goes back to my initial point,” said Finley. “Be careful what you wish for.”

As an example, Finley pointed to the relationship between the governmental Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the private Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), together providing a watchdog over the nation's financial institutions.

While FINRA provides the SEC with input in the rule-making process, the SEC wields tremendous independent authority with its own enforcement and investigatory staff of government lawyers, Finley explained.

“The more these legal challenges to the HISA statute on the grounds that it delegates too much rulemaking or investigation and enforcement authority to a private body,” said Finley, “it means that the proponents of uniform national regulation are left with the option of creating a government agency to do that uniform regulation and enforcement.”

Critics of HISA, however, are keen that never happens.

The National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA) issued an open letter to the industry Thursday, taking aim at HISA and the private Authority for “too many flaws, missteps and costs that could have been averted with true inclusion and transparency in its development.”

The HBPA urged industry stakeholders to build its own set of uniform rules, independent of HISA.

“That includes the National HBPA, America's largest organization representing Thoroughbred owners and trainers; the Association of Racing Commissioners International [ARCI], whose years of hard work on model rules should be the starting point rather than largely ignored; the racetrack veterinarians, and the Jockeys' Guild,” the letter states.

Those in agreement are urged to sign onto the open letter here.

Kentucky lawmaker, Damon Thayer, is looking to resuscitate a bill passed into law by the state legislature in 2011. “It allows Kentucky to participate in an interstate compact, where a group of states can work together on laws pertaining to horseracing,” said Thayer.

The 2011 Kentucky bill allows member states “to act jointly and cooperatively to create more uniform, effective, and efficient practices, programs, rules, and regulations relating to live pari-mutuel horse or greyhound racing and to pari-mutuel wagering activities, both on-track and off-track, that occur in or affect a member state.”

To join on, each individual state would have to pass a similar interstate compact law.

“We could just take a handful of states to start off,” Thayer said, pointing to the major racing jurisdictions of Kentucky, California, New York and Florida.

“If we could get the ARCI or the National HBPA to take the lead on this, we could get something going,” he added. “I don't just want to be a critic of HISA. I want to be a critic of HISA who's offering another alternative.”

How would this venture differ from previously failed attempts at full nationwide uniformity, like the National Uniform Medication Program (NUMP)?

“That would be a good place to start,” Thayer replied, about the NUMP rules as a baseline for the compact's medication program. “But I think now that we've seen the other option, which is of federal legislation–now that it's here, they might be motivated to try something different that's led by the states.”

At the end of the day, warned Finley, the longer the industry continues without uniformity, the more susceptible it grows to attacks from outside groups on its ethical integrity.

As Finley says, “it's about convincing the public that there are national regulations with their focus on equine and human safety and welfare, and that there is serious meaningful enforcement of those rules at a national level with real investigatory power behind it.”

The post “We’re Back in the Courts” : Finley on What’s Next for HISA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Q and A With Constitutional Law Expert Lucinda Finley

The latest tumultuous turn in the unfolding saga of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) was delivered in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Friday, when the court ruled the law unconstitutional because it cedes too much governmental authority to a private entity, and too little rule-making input to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is charged with ultimately signing off on the law's rules.

In the immediate aftermath of the decision, three legal experts weighed in for the TDN on the legal avenues open to HISA, besides asking for a stay on the ruling. They include seeking an “en banc” hearing before the full Fifth Circuit panel of judges, possibly taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, or a Congressional re-write of the rules to afford the FTC greater input in the rule-making process.

Another important date for HISA's near-term future looms on Dec. 7, when a case that raises similar constitutional questions of the law is scheduled to be argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

To discuss these issues more closely, the TDN spoke with Lucinda Finley, Frank Raichle Professor of Trial and Appellate Advocacy, and director of Appellate Advocacy at the University of Buffalo Law School. In her work as a litigator and appellate advocate in federal courts, Finley frequently testifies before the U.S. Congress and state legislative committees. She has also argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Intriguingly, Finley–sister of TDN writer Bill Finley–believes Friday's ruling is legally binding only in the three states under the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction.

Finley's interpretation mirrors that of Bennett Liebman, a legal scholar routinely cited in the TDN, but runs counter to what has been to date the overarching response to the ruling, which has been to regard it as nationally applicable.

 

TDN: Were you surprised by the Fifth Circuit decision?

Finley: No, I wasn't for several reasons. First, the Fifth Circuit is probably the most conservative group of circuit court judges in the country. The conservative judges that have been appointed in the last few years are known to be hostile to broad regulatory schemes.

Second, I wasn't surprised because I think it's actually a very close legal question–whether the HISA statute gives too much rule-making authority to the private entity.

On the law, I think the ruling makes many important points that perhaps the HISA statute went too far in giving too much authority to the private entity and not enough regulatory authority to the FTC.

 

TDN: Does the Fifth Circuit ruling apply nationally, or just to the states under their jurisdictional umbrella, i.e., Louisiana, Texas, and…?

 Finley: …Mississippi.

It has binding legal effect only in those three states. However, it will have important precedential impact on courts in other states, including the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that is considering a case raising the identical constitutional issues.

 

TDN: Yes, how does that case in the Sixth Circuit affect things?

Finley: We don't know until the Sixth Circuit rules. If the Sixth Circuit were to disagree with the Fifth Circuit and conclude that HISA is constitutional, we will have two different federal courts saying the exact opposite about the constitutionality of a federal statute.

In that event, the U.S. Supreme Court would be very likely to agree to hear the case and come up with one uniform national ruling on whether or not HISA is constitutional.

 

TDN: What would happen if they ruled in unison?

 Finley: The same way as the Fifth Circuit? That might make it less likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear the case.

[The Supreme Court] is most likely to take a case when there are conflicting decisions in different U.S. Courts of Appeals because they realize you really can't have the federal law be completely different in some regions of the country compared to others. If the U.S. Courts of Appeals are in agreement, the Supreme Court sees that there is no uncertainty about the federal law that they need to resolve.

 

TDN: In Friday's TDN, various legal experts discussed two main legal routes available to HISA, including to seek an “en banc” hearing before the full Fifth Circuit Court, or to take the case to the Supreme Court. Which do you think is the likeliest scenario?

Finley: I think that, first, the HISA lawyers are likely to ask the Fifth Circuit panel of judges, the three that decided the case, to stay the effective date of their decision to give them time to pursue further appeals. I think it is unlikely that the panel of Fifth Circuit judges will grant a stay. They were very, very strong in their conclusion that HISA is unconstitutional.

In that event, the HISA lawyers could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to stay or suspend the effective date of the Fifth Circuit decision to give them time to take an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court would grant that stay is, I think, something nobody can predict. Nobody has a crystal ball in that one.

It is certainly a worthwhile and likely step for the HISA lawyers to seek first in the Fifth Circuit itself and then in the US Supreme Court a stay of the effective date of the decision, just to give more time for appeals.

Then they could seek what's known as an “en banc” review where they ask all of the judges of the Fifth Circuit to consider the case. I think that's a real long shot that the judges would agree to. I think it would just delay the timing of trying to get to the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, an advantage of seeking the “en banc” review is, if it is granted, that suspends the effective date of the panel decision. When the entire court, sitting what we call en banc, agrees to rehear a case, it has the effect of wiping out the panel decision. If the Fifth Circuit were to grant that request for en banc review, it would mean that HISA was back in business, at least until the entire Fifth Circuit ruled.

The next step after that would be to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court and ask them to agree to hear the case.

 

TDN: Let's step back a step. As you stated earlier, the Fifth Circuit ruling applies only to those states within its jurisdiction. Why have quite a lot of other people considered it nationally applicable?

Finley: I don't know why somebody would think that. There was no injunction in this Fifth Circuit decision, meaning they haven't issued an order stopping anyone from doing anything. There's nothing in the order itself that says it has national effect.

The traditional rule is that a U.S. Court of Appeals decision only is binding in that circuit, otherwise, there wouldn't be 11 different Federal Circuit Appeals Courts if the ruling of one would affect the whole country. You would basically just have one huge U.S. Court of Appeals that made decisions for the whole country. That's not the structure of our Court of Appeals federal system.

As I said earlier, it certainly has a powerful precedential effect. I think it means that it would be very unwise for HISA to continue with its regulatory program in other states because of the risk of constantly being sued. Everyone will cite the Fifth Circuit decision. [But] saying that it might have persuasive impact on judges in other parts of the country is different from saying that it is automatically legally binding on judges in other parts of the country.

For example, to show you why it's not binding in the whole country, as we noted, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is about to hear a case raising the same issues. The Sixth Circuit is free to disagree with the Fifth Circuit.

 

TDN: What way does the Sixth Circuit Court lean?

Finley: They are a more mixed court. They have a more equal number of judges appointed by Democratic presidents and Republican presidents. I think, in the Sixth Circuit, it's really going to depend on which three judges are assigned to hear the appeal.

 

TDN: Do you see HISA as being in some kind of legal jeopardy nationwide, moving forward, if they continue to issue rulings?

Finley: Yes, I do. With the Fifth Circuit having said they think the entire statute is unconstitutional, anyone who gets an investigation or ruling from HISA would most likely file a lawsuit asking the court to issue an injunction against HISA, investigating them or nullifying the ruling, making the exact same argument that all their rules are unconstitutional, and citing to the Fifth Circuit decisions.

 

TDN: Does this also apply retroactively to all rulings that they've issued since July 1?

 Finley: Court decisions usually do not apply retroactively. [But] people still have the right to appeal the decisions that have been made against them, and to challenge them in court. They can, now, raise the argument that the whole statute is unconstitutional, and as I said, ask the judge to agree with the Fifth Circuit.

As the Fifth Circuit itself said, in its ruling, “Without the constitutional right to even make the rules, HISA's enforcement and investigative powers are null and void.” So, I would think anyone who is a subject of a HISA investigation, or ruling against them, will now go to court and make the argument that they can't enforce their rules because their rules are unconstitutional.

 

TDN: So, from everything that you've laid out, if no stays are issued on the Fifth Circuit ruling and it goes into effect on Jan. 10, and the Sixth Circuit makes some kind of ruling that mirrors the Fifth Circuit ruling, theoretically, you could see a potential scenario whereby HISA is nullified in those jurisdictions—the states that fall under the Fifth and Sixth Circuits—but is in effect in states beyond that?

Finley: Potentially. I expect that the legally prudent thing for HISA to do right now is to suspend their investigations and enforcement of their rules until the constitutionality of the statute is sorted out, perhaps in the Supreme Court, or until they convince Congress to amend the statute to fix the problems that the Fifth Circuit found.

 

TDN: Do you think that's the easiest route, a congressional rewrite of the rules?

Finley: Easy? None of the routes are easy. But, I think it is the route that is likely to have the most success in saving the goal of national rules for racing.

The reason I think that is because there's a very strong chance that if the Supreme Court did take the case, they would agree with the Fifth Circuit and say that HISA is unconstitutional because it gives too much governmental rule making authority to the private body. Congress could easily fix that by giving the FTC more authority to change, add to, delete, or reject the proposed rules that HISA develops.

Since HISA itself had such strong bipartisan support, and two of its biggest champions in the House and the Senate are Republicans from Kentucky who understand that preserving the public perception that horse racing is kind to horses and has integrity is essential to preserving the entire breeding and racing industry. I think there's a chance that, fairly quickly, Congress may want to fix the problems in the statute. It's not the kind of issue that's going to get caught up in partisan politics.

 

TDN: You think there's the political will right now to do this?

Finley: What will it take to of reignite the fire in Congress? Just one more fatal breakdown of a horse that maybe should have been on the vet's list, but it was in a lax state. One more drug scandal. That's all it's going to take for Congress to say, “Maybe we better go back to the drawing board and save this national structure.”

What do you think are the odds in horse racing that over the next few months there'll be one more fatal breakdown of a horse that probably should have been on the vet's list, or one more drug scandal?

 

TDN: What are some of the broader implications if the case does eventually end up at the Supreme Court, with its current make up?

Finley: This current court has signaled that there are at least four, perhaps five, justices who would like to curtail the power of regulatory agencies, broadly. This case could present a vehicle for them to do that, to cut back not only on the ability of agencies to use private bodies that have expertise to help them develop their rules, but potentially to cut back on the rule making authority of regulatory agencies, in general.

Potentially, even if the court were to simply cut back on the ability of regulatory agencies to use the expertise of private advisory bodies, that would have major implications because many regulatory agencies do call on expert advisory bodies to develop their rules and policies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The [Food and Drug Administration] convenes expert panels of scientists to assess the safety, or risks, of various drugs. The Medicare and Medicaid agencies often, in some states, look to experts from the health insurance industry to help them determine reimbursement rates and policies.

There are all kinds of examples throughout our entire regulatory system where agencies rely on private expertise. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it would really be about much more than just HISA.

 

TDN: Who would've thought that horse racing would be positioned in this way.

Finley: That's a very interesting observation.

It could become the vehicle for altering a lot of our current federal regulatory law, but in particular, the branch of it involved in this case, which is a somewhat obscure but important doctrine known as the Private Delegation Doctrine. In other words, “When can a federal governmental agency delegate some of its ability to make rules to a private, i.e., non-governmental, entity?”

As I said, it would have implications in securities exchanges, in pharmaceutical product regulation, in financial regulation, in healthcare regulations.

 

TDN: Where does all this lead for HISA?

Finley: It may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory [for the plaintiffs]. If your whole argument as to why HISA is unconstitutional is that it doesn't give the FTC bureaucrats enough authority to set your rules, guess what's going to happen? FTC bureaucrats will now have the authority to set your rules instead of people that are much more receptive to your concerns.

   [Industry stakeholders] get a lot more input and flexibility in making adjustments from HISA–as we've already seen–than they will from some federal bureaucrats at the FTC in Washington who will say, `Oh, you don't like our rules? Go sue.' And the case will take five years. I don't think the FTC would be nearly as open and receptive to being so flexible with stakeholder concerns.

So, be careful what you wish for.

The post Q and A With Constitutional Law Expert Lucinda Finley appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights