Federal Judge Rejects Challenge to Greyhound Racing Ban
A voter-approved 2018 constitutional amendment set a Dec. 31, 2020, deadline for ending greyhound racing at pari-mutuel facilities, though tracks have started halting racing ahead of the deadline.
May 03, 2020 at 11:47 PM
3 minute read
Turning down arguments about property rights, a federal judge has rejected a challenge to a 2018 constitutional amendment that will end greyhound racing in Florida.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a 55-page ruling last Monday that dismissed the lawsuit filed by the industry group Support Working Animals Inc. and individual plaintiffs. The voter-approved amendment set a Dec. 31, 2020, deadline for ending greyhound racing at pari-mutuel facilities, though tracks have started halting racing ahead of the deadline.
The lawsuit raised a series of issues under the U.S. Constitution, including that the ballot measure, known as Amendment 13, has led to an improper "taking" of property without adequate compensation. But Walker rejected the argument, in part, because of the state's "police power."
"Through Amendment 13, Florida has prohibited plaintiffs' property from being used in a particular manner that the state has determined to be contrary to the health, morals, or safety of the community," Walker wrote. "Whether Amendment 13's purpose was to protect the health and welfare of racing dogs or to prohibit wagering on dog races, Amendment 13 is a legitimate exercise of Florida's police power."
He also turned down other federal constitutional arguments, including that the amendment had violated equal-protection rights because greyhound racing was singled out and horse racing was not addressed.
"Whether, as plaintiffs assert, the purpose of Amendment 13 is to protect greyhound dogs from being harmed or whether its purpose is to prohibit a certain form of pari-mutuel wagering in the state, Amendment 13 is rationally related to a legitimate state interest," he wrote.
The state Constitution Revision Commission put the amendment on the November 2018 ballot after years of debate about Florida's decades-old greyhound racing industry. While greyhound racing has faced dwindling popularity, state law ensured that it would continue because track operators were required to continue running races if they wanted to offer more-lucrative games such poker.
But the constitutional amendment ended that requirement and said pari-mutuel operators as of the end of 2020 may not race greyhounds "in connection with any wager for money or any other thing of value in this state."
Support Working Animals and the other plaintiffs argued in the lawsuit that Amendment 13 "seeks to render plaintiffs' business practices unlawful, thereby depriving the plaintiffs of their property rights in a fashion that violates the fundamental rights afforded under the United States and Florida's Constitution."
"By eliminating wagering on dog races, [the constitutional amendment] deprived the property owners engaged in the commercial enterprise of racing dogs in the state of Florida of substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of their property and return on their investments," the lawsuit said.
Walker granted a motion by the state to dismiss the lawsuit but wrote that he would allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by May 11 if they choose to do so. But he also wrote that it "seems doubtful that plaintiffs will be able to allege additional facts that would remedy the defects this court has identified."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250