666 F.3d 997
6th Cir.2012Background
- The Horseman’s Benevolent & Protective Association sues Beulah Park, River Downs, Chester Downs, and Ohio Racing Commission over off-track wagering and federal preemption.
- Federal Interstate Horseracing Act requires host racing association to have a written agreement with the horsemen’s group before consenting to interstate off-track wagering.
- Ohio law permits the Racing Commission to authorize simulcasting if the horsemen’s group withholds consent, creating a potential path around the written agreement requirement.
- Beulah Park and River Downs previously entered into agreements with the Association governing consent to simulcasts; they must submit proposals to the Association for approval.
- In 2006, Beulah Park and River Downs sought Chester Downs out-of-state wagering; the Association demanded 5% instead of 3% and the Racing Commission later approved the arrangement.
- The district court held the Ohio statute preempted by the Interstate Horseracing Act and entered judgment against the Racing Commission; racetrack defendants were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the IHA preempt Ohio's consent process for interstate wagering? | Horsemen veto is required by the Act; Ohio thwarts it. | Act requires host association consent only; Ohio process not preempted. | Yes, preempted; Ohio process conflicts with IHA. |
| Does Ohio law's 'horsemen’s veto' mechanism conflict with the Act’s written-agreement requirement? | Veto is integral and must be respected under IHA. | Consent can be obtained via host association; written agreement coordinated with horsemen is enough. | Preempted; horsemen’s veto is part of the Act and Ohio law negates it. |
| Was the district court correct to dismiss the racetrack defendants after settlement? | Settlement should not eliminate all defendants from the case. | Settlement between plaintiff and some defendants ends their involvement; fee issues remain with others. | No reversible error; dismissal appropriate and fee arguments preserved for later consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011) (federal preemption requires direct conflict between statutes)
- Kentucky Div. Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Ass’n v. Turfway Park Racing Ass’n, 20 F.3d 1406 (6th Cir. 1994) (horsemen’s veto rationally related to industry interests)