Gongwer News Service
A federal district court judge said Tuesday she will consider a motion for preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed this month against the Michigan Gaming Control Board and Attorney General Dana Nessel.
The lawsuit, Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Company v. Gaming Control Board (USWDM 25-00047), alleges that the board and Nessel violated the U.S. Constitution through their enforcement of licensing provisions in Michigan’s horse racing law, claiming that the Interstate Horseracing Act preempts state law requirements to partner with an in-state institution. The requirement, the lawsuit said, conflicts with Congress’s exclusive power over interstate commerce.
The complaint stems from the state’s efforts to shut down the horserace wagering platform that TwinSpires, a betting partner operated through Churchill Downs in Kentucky, offers to Michigan residents for wagers on the Kentucky Derby.
Churchill Downs asserts that TwinSpires voluntarily possessed a Michigan license for many years – even though it has stated that it does not need on due to federal law – but the state recently suspended that license because of separate issues with the last remaining racetrack in Michigan: Northville Downs, which closed last year after 80 years of operation.
A motion for preliminary injunction was filed soon after asking the court to prohibit the state from enforcing the state horse racing law against Churchill Downs.
In an order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Hala Jarbou of the Western District of Michigan granted an emergency motion for expedited consideration of the injunction in part.
“Churchill Downs has demonstrated good cause for expedited briefing, but its proposed schedule unduly prejudices the defendants, particularly given the timing and sequence in which it submitted its motions,” Jarbou wrote. “The defendants, in their response, seek 14 days to respond to Churchill Downs’s motion for preliminary injunction. Churchill Downs indicates that four days is sufficient for its reply.”
Jarbou instead ordered the defendants to submit a reply by February 10. Oral arguments in the matter or a hearing on the motion would then be scheduled if the court deemed it necessary, Jarbou added.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available