Federal Judge Won't Issue Restraining Order to Block HISA in Oklahoma

A federal judge in Oklahoma on Thursday denied a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that eight licensed Remington Park horsepeople wanted put in place to keep the Horseracing and Safety Integrity Act (HISA) from being enforced in that state.

Chief Judge Timothy DeGiusti of United States District Court of Oklahoma (Western District) wrote in an Aug. 8 order that, “the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient showing of irreparable harm to warrant the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief, [and that] the imminent threat of irreparable harm that might warrant relief-particularly the issuance of a TRO on an expedited basis-is simply not present here.”

The TRO request by the eight plaintiffs-Joe Offolter, Danny Caldwell, Elizabeth Butler, Randy Blair, Bryan Hawk, Scott Young, Boyd Caster and Michael Major-is only one component of their broader constitutional lawsuit that targets the HISA Authority and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as defendants.

The litigation seeks to invalidate HISA rules and prohibit the HISA Authority, the FTC, and the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) from enforcing the regulations that govern the sport.

At some future point as the case unfolds, the judge wrote, it is possible that he might consider enforcing a preliminary injunction against the HISA rules.

“[T]he Court expresses no opinion about the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or whether injunctive relief might be appropriate on a more developed record,” DeGiusti wrote.

Thus, other aspects of the lawsuit “should proceed in the usual course in which all parties have the opportunity to make, and the Court has the ability to consider, an orderly presentation of the relevant facts and the legal authorities bearing on Plaintiffs' claims,” the order stated.

But by denying the TRO, DeGiusti was essentially agreeing with a legal response that had been filed by the HISA Authority on Monday that stated “there is no emergency.”

Seven previous federal lawsuits initiated around the country since 2021 have similarly tried to invalidate HISA, and the judge in this latest Oklahoma case acknowledged in his order that he was aware of the ramifications of the other litigation, including the conflicting opinions about HISA's constitutionality that have been handed down by the Fifth and Sixth Circuits of the federal appeals courts.

“Various challenges to HISA's regulatory scheme have been moving through the federal court system while legislative and regulatory amendments have been made,” the order stated. “The Authority has been enforcing the current regulations in Oklahoma for more than a year. With the exception of Plaintiff Butler, these same plaintiffs brought and voluntarily dismissed a similar lawsuit involving almost identical claims over a year ago.

“The impetus for the present action is a decision by the Fifth Circuit on July 5, 2024, declaring unconstitutional HISA's delegation of enforcement power to the Authority, which vests executive functions in a private entity,” the order continued. “Until the mandate in [that case] issues, however, the plaintiffs in that case (including an Oklahoma horsemen's association) cannot seek injunctive relief from the trial court barring HISA enforcement activities by the Authority and HIWU.”

Judge DeGiusti's eight-page order was issued only 24 hours after he presided over a Wednesday hearing regarding the TRO.

“During the Aug. 7 hearing, counsel for the parties presented oral argument that addressed the requirement to show irreparable harm,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs made clear they are making a facial challenge to HISA's enforcement scheme, and they contend the mere existence of unconstitutional regulatory oversight by the Authority and HIWU-that is, the possibility of being subjected to an unconstitutional exercise of the Authority's enforcement power-constitutes irreparable harm that cannot be cured or remedied later by a favorable ruling or judicial declaration.”

But at this very early stage in the litigation, DeGiusti wrote, “Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden to make a clear showing that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm if a TRO does not issue to prevent the Authority from enforcing HISA regulations against them.”