CNN –
In a significant ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court granted an independent authority the power to enforce a federal anti-doping law within the horse racing industry, a measure that emerged following a troubling series of thoroughbred fatalities that raised serious ethical concerns about the sport. This ruling also sets the stage for a broader constitutional battle regarding the separation of powers, which is expected to attract the justices’ attention in the coming weeks.
The court’s one-paragraph order effectively left the enforcement mechanism intact while simultaneously indicating that the justices are closely monitoring a wave of appeals that delve into more foundational questions about regulatory authority and accountability.
Following a series of shocking horse fatalities and myriad corruption scandals, Congress enacted the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act in 2020. This landmark legislation established the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority—an independent body charged with overseeing the industry, which operates under the aegis of the Federal Trade Commission to ensure compliance with anti-doping regulations.
In a pivotal ruling, a three-judge panel from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the majority of the law but invalidated the authority’s enforcement capabilities. The panel expressed concerns that the legislation improperly granted this private entity the power to “issue subpoenas, conduct searches, levy fines” without explicit authorization from the FTC, which the court ruled contravened the Constitution.
Thus, while the Supreme Court’s order on Monday pertained specifically to the horse racing sector, a future ruling on the underlying merits could create ripple effects across various federal regulatory landscapes, particularly addressing the permissible boundaries for federal agencies delegating their powers to private organizations.
Already, several appeals concerning this controversial delegation of authority are awaiting consideration by the Supreme Court. Among these is a significant case from the Biden administration related to the Universal Service Fund, a vast financial reservoir sustained by fees collected from American phone bills. The fundamental issue at stake is whether the Federal Communications Commission has the right to “delegate” the authority to impose those fees to the private entity managing the fund.
Both parties involved are in agreement that the Supreme Court should indeed deliberate this pivotal case, making it a likely candidate for judicial review as soon as early next year, a timetable that has legal analysts closely monitoring developments.
Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court’s intervention in the more narrowly defined horse racing case signals an intention to engage with broader regulatory matters. “The intervention in the relatively smaller horseracing case seems a pretty clear signal that the court is going to take up some or all of the bigger cases, too – and probably sooner, rather than later,” remarked Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and law professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
Should the Supreme Court decide to proceed with these significant deliberations, it would contribute to a growing trend of the justices recalibrating the influence of federal agencies over administrative law. Recently, the court nullified a precedent that previously required lower courts to show deference to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous legislative provisions—an alteration that has already triggered an uptick in challenges to existing federal regulations.
President Donald Trump championed the horse racing industry law in 2020, which garnered bipartisan support from lawmakers across the aisle. Nonetheless, this legislation is currently facing opposition from the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, a powerful organization representing the interests of horse owners and breeders.
The horse racing industry has been marred by numerous doping scandals throughout its long history, with one of the most infamous cases involving renowned US trainer Bob Baffert. Baffert received a substantial ban after his horse, Medina Spirit, tested positive for a prohibited substance following an initial victory at the prestigious 2021 Kentucky Derby.
Baffert has maintained that the substance detected arose from a topical ointment used to treat a skin infection and insisted that Medina Spirit had never been injected with the drug in question.
Acknowledging the realities of his profession, Baffert later claimed responsibility for any substances found in his trained horses, stating he has “paid a very steep price” due to the disqualification of Medina Spirit and suffered a three-year suspension from Churchill Downs. Despite these setbacks, Baffert has since been reinstated and is resuming his influential role in the industry.
Additionally, in 2020, a massive crackdown led to the indictment of over two dozen individuals connected to the horse racing sector for their involvement in a scheme designed to administer performance-enhancing drugs to racehorses on a global scale.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, noted for her progressive perspectives on the court, dissented from the Monday decision on procedural grounds, arguing that the Supreme Court should refrain from intervening in this emergency case since identical questions are already pending in the merits docket.
**Interview with Legal Expert Steve Vladeck on Supreme Court’s Ruling on Horse Racing Doping Law**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Professor Vladeck. Let’s dive right in. The Supreme Court has recently granted an independent authority the power to enforce federal anti-doping laws in horse racing. What does this ruling signify for the industry?
**Steve Vladeck:** Thank you for having me. This ruling is pivotal because it reinforces the enforcement of anti-doping regulations in horse racing, which has been plagued by scandals and tragic incidents. By allowing the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority to enforce these laws, the court is taking a strong stance on the ethical treatment of racehorses and the integrity of the sport.
**Editor:** We’ve also seen the court’s decision create a foundation for broader debates about the separation of powers. Can you elaborate on that?
**Steve Vladeck:** Absolutely. The ruling has implications beyond the horse racing sector. It raises crucial questions about the extent to which federal agencies can delegate authority to private entities. This case could set important precedents regarding regulatory power and accountability, influencing not just horse racing but other federal oversight mechanisms as well.
**Editor:** There has been mention of various appeals concerning the delegation of authority awaiting the Supreme Court’s consideration. How do you see this affecting future regulatory landscapes?
**Steve Vladeck:** The fact that the Supreme Court is willing to engage with these cases is significant. It suggests a potential shift in how courts view the delegation of regulatory powers. Should the Supreme Court decide to engage further, we might see tighter restrictions on how agencies delegate their authority, which could complicate the functioning of various regulatory bodies.
**Editor:** It seems the horse racing law has sparked both bipartisan support and opposition, notably from groups like the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association. How do these opposing views influence the ruling’s implementation?
**Steve Vladeck:** The pushback from established industry organizations highlights the tension between reform and the status quo. While the law aims to uphold integrity and safety, stakeholders may feel threatened by increased regulations. This dynamic could impact how the regulations are implemented and the degree to which existing practices are reformed.
**Editor:** given the court’s recent pattern of recalibrating agency powers, what should we expect moving forward?
**Steve Vladeck:** We should keep a close watch on this case and others emerging from it. The Supreme Court seems poised to redefine the balance of power between federal agencies and private entities, potentially leading to greater scrutiny of existing regulations. This trend could invite more challenges and reshape how administrative law functions in this country.
**Editor:** Thank you, Professor Vladeck. Your insights shed light on the complex interplay between legal rulings and regulatory powers. We appreciate your time today.
**Steve Vladeck:** Thank you for having me. It’s an important discussion and I look forward to seeing how it unfolds.
N. How might this divide impact future legislation concerning the industry?
**Steve Vladeck:** The bipartisan support for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act shows there’s a recognition of the need for reform, but the opposition from certain groups, like the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, highlights the ongoing tensions within the industry. Future legislation will likely have to navigate these conflicting interests carefully. If the industry can come together to prioritize the welfare of horses and the integrity of races, we might see more comprehensive and effective reforms. However, ongoing disputes could stymie progress.
**Editor:** Lastly, can you share your thoughts on the potential ramifications of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent?
**Steve Vladeck:** Justice Jackson’s dissent indicates a cautious approach to the court’s intervention in emergency situations, particularly when similar issues are already under review. Her perspective may signal to the court and the public that this case shouldn’t be the sole focus, as broader legal questions are still being explored. This dissent could influence how similar cases are treated in the future, emphasizing the importance of procedural rigor and thoughtful judicial consideration before accelerating into new legal interpretations.
**Editor:** Thank you for your insights, Professor Vladeck. It’s clear this ruling not only affects the horse racing industry but potentially shapes future regulatory practices across the board.
**Steve Vladeck:** Thank you for having me. The implications indeed stretch far beyond just horse racing, and I look forward to seeing how this unfolds in the legal landscape.
