Gary West v. Ky. Horse Racing Comm'n, 972 F.3d 881

In the 2019 Kentucky Derby, Maximum Security finished first but the race stewards reviewed objections and disqualified him for in-race interference, placing him seventeenth.
The Wests (owners) sought administrative review from the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission; the Commission’s counsel replied the stewards’ disqualification decision was not subject to appeal.
The Wests sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the stewards’ call was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, violated procedural due process (property and liberty interests), and that the regulating rule was unconstitutionally vague.
The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding (1) the stewards’ in-race disqualification is not a “final order[] of an agency” under KRS § 13B.140(1), (2) the Wests had no protected property or liberty interest in the Derby purse/trophy, and (3) the regulation was not unconstitutionally vague.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed: the stewards’ in-race decision was not an administrative ‘‘final order’’ (it was not an administrative hearing nor made effective by the agency head), the Wests lacked a protected interest, and the vagueness claim failed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stewards’ disqualification is a "final order" under KRS §13B.140(1) and thus judicially reviewable	Wests: steward decision is a final agency disposition subject to judicial review	Kentucky: regulation makes in-race steward findings final and non-appealable; not an administrative "final order"	Held: Not a final order — not an "administrative hearing" and not "made effective by an agency head"; thus no statutory judicial review
Whether the stewards’ decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence	Wests: decision lacked substantial evidence and was arbitrary	Kentucky: stewards have discretion to assess fouls and placements under the regulation	Held: Court did not reach merits because decision is not reviewable under state law
Whether Wests were denied procedural due process (property/liberty interests)	Wests: they had a property interest in the purse/trophy and a liberty interest in agency following its regulations	Kentucky: racing privileges are discretionary; regulations confer steward discretion and owners relinquish entitlement	Held: No protected property or liberty interest; no due process violation
Whether the regulating rule is unconstitutionally vague	Wests: rule is vague and permits arbitrary enforcement	Kentucky: rule provides sufficient standards and stewards’ discretion is lawful	Held: Vagueness claim fails because Wests lack a protected interest triggering due process protection

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts need plausible factual allegations and need not accept legal conclusions)
Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests are defined by state law, not the Constitution)
Med Corp., Inc. v. City of Lima, 296 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2002) (no property interest where award is wholly discretionary)
EJS Props., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012) (party cannot have a property interest in a discretionary benefit)
Tomaszczuk v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 159 (6th Cir. 2018) (must show deprivation of protected interest to raise vagueness challenge)
United States v. Simpson, 520 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2008) (federal courts predict how state supreme court would rule; intermediate appellate decisions are persuasive)
Higgins v. Kentucky Sports Radio, LLC, 951 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2020) (acknowledging that officials’ calls can change outcomes in sports contexts)
Torres v. Vitale, 954 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2020) (district court dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) reviewed de novo)
Lomax v. Ortiz‑Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (2020) (metaphor that judges are like umpires in assessing reviewability of sporting decisions)