Via TD Thornton
After receiving written summaries from both parties on whether to impose an initial order blocking the Agency’s rules for integrity and safety of the Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) until a lawsuit challenges them fully decided, the judge in charge of the case on Friday denied the plaintiffs’ request for a potentially lengthy in-person hearing to further debate the matter.
The plaintiffs, headed by the states of Louisiana and West Virginia, plus Jockeys’ Guild and various “insured persons” based in Louisiana under HISA rules, told the judge on Thursday that it was mandatory. must allow them to appeal their case for a face-to-face order.
The plaintiffs wrote in a July 21 court document that they were prepared to present at least 10 witnesses to testify to “the severity of the violations that HISA rules are causing the United States to , racing committees, the industry and its participants.”
That list of witnesses includes the Louisiana-based group of riders and racing commission executives, plus racing officials, veterinarians, owners, trainers, riders, a state manager and two representatives of the Jockeys’ Guild. Several of the proposed witnesses are also plaintiffs in the case.
Judge Terry Doughty of the United States District Court (Western District of Louisiana) was not convinced that he needed to hear all of that testimony before deciding. Writing in a July 22 order, he stated that his pending decision on whether to issue a preliminary order would be based solely on pleading texts.
The defendants, which include HISA, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), board members and supervisors of both organizations, are accused of violating the Fourth and Seventh Amendment. and tenth of the United States Structureplus the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and enact regulations.
The defendants survived after the plaintiff requested a temporary restraining order to accompany the original complaint. That complaint was filed two days before July 1 into effect for the first phase of the new HISA rules that are now in effect nationally.
At the time, Doughty wrote that “it would be inappropriate to issue a temporary restraining order regarding an Act of Congress.” But he added that the original order requested could still be a possibility.
The preliminary injunction question the judge must decide now is fundamentally different, but it still has the potential to block HISA rules like a temporary restraining order would.
A temporary restraining order is generally a kind of “urgent” order to prevent immediate harm, and it has an expiration date. On the other hand, a preliminary order is often used to restrict a party from taking a certain action while the case is pending, and the order is usually in effect until the case is fully resolved.
On July 15, HISA-led defendants wrote in a petition opposing that order: “The vast majority of stakeholders in the equine industry recognize the need for uniform regulations and is working with the Agency and the FTC to ensure a smooth transition. new proxy regime of the National Assembly. But a small minority of outliers, including Plaintiffs, have long opposed the Act on policy grounds and have become increasingly desperate in their efforts to prevent its implementation.”
Not so, the plaintiffs responded in their July 22 filing:
“The facts on the ground further expose the errors in Defendant’s description of the horse industry as of July 1, when the HISA rules went into effect. This industry is in turmoil because of HISA’s hasty and reckless management plan. FTC stock is to blame for the chaos because it has failed to provide proper oversight of a private, nonprofit corporation’s regulatory takeover of the horse-drawn industry; Its token review and rubberstamp’s approval of HISA’s rules are inconsistent with the necessary substantive and procedural review,” the document states.
