By T. D. Thornton
Ahead of a Wednesday federal court hearing to determine if a temporary injunction is warranted in Oklahoma to keep the Horseracing and Safety Integrity Act (HISA) from being enforced in that state, the HISA Authority filed a legal response Monday that stated “there is no emergency” that would merit such action.
The Authority further told the court that the eight licensed Remington Park horsepeople who are plaintiffs in the case are engaging in “foot-dragging and gamesmanship” in their repeated efforts to derail HISA on the grounds of alleged unconstitutionality.
In an Aug. 5 filing in United States District Court of Oklahoma (Western District), the HISA Authority went on record as opposing the “extraordinary request” for a temporary restraining order.
“Plaintiffs seek to immediately block operation of a federal statute that a bipartisan Congress enacted almost four years ago,” the filing stated. “But there is no emergency: Plaintiffs have already raced hundreds of times under the congressionally mandated regulations that have been in effect for over two years.
“Worse yet, Plaintiffs have sat on the sidelines while other challengers have litigated the same constitutional claims for years in multiple circuits–including the State of Oklahoma itself, [which] lost in the district court following full summary judgment briefing; lost in a unanimous Sixth Circuit decision, [and] had their petition for a writ of certiorari denied by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 after over three years of litigation,” the HISA Authority filing stated.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed July 24, are Joe Offolter, Danny Caldwell, Elizabeth Butler, Randy Blair, Bryan Hawk, Scott Young, Boyd Caster and Michael Major.
Similar to seven other lawsuits that have been introduced in federal courts since 2021, the Oklahoma licensees want declaratory judgments, injunctions, and restraining orders imposed that would invalidate HISA rules and prohibit the HISA Authority, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) from enforcing the regulations that govern the sport. Specifically, they are claiming alleged violations of the constitutional non-delegation doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The HISA Authority response continued: “Plaintiffs ask this Court in a matter of days to second-guess the considered judgments of [other federal courts] on complex issues and enjoin operation of HISA across the entire State against everyone. That ploy is unfair to this Court, unfair to Defendants, and unfair to the thousands of racing participants that rely on the Act's operation.
“Plaintiffs' 'emergency' request is all the more remarkable given that they voluntarily dismissed a challenge to the same statute and regulations in this same Court over a year ago. Yet Plaintiffs nowhere mention that prior action,” the filing stated.
“That foot-dragging and gamesmanship underscore that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate 'the single most important prerequisite' for the drastic relief they seek: irreparable harm,” the filing stated.
“The only exigency Plaintiffs allege is that they plan to run races subject to the same rules that have governed the races they've already participated in for the past two years,” the filing stated.
“The balance of equities and public interest also weigh firmly against disrupting that status quo by abruptly halting a transformative federal regime to which the industry has adjusted and which is saving lives-particularly on facial claims unlikely to succeed on the merits,” the filing stated.
“The Court should treat the application as a motion for a preliminary injunction and deny it,” the HISA Authority filing concluded.
Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.
