Kentucky Division, Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Turfway Park Racing
District Court, E.D. Kentucky
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
BERTELSMAN, Chief Judge.
I. Introduction
This action involves constitutional and interpretational challenges to the Interstate Horseracing Act (“IHA” or “the Act”). 1 For the reasons set forth below, the court holds that the Act is an invalid restriction on commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment, as well as a fatally vague and irrational statute in violation of substantive due process. Accordingly, partial summary judgment is entered in favor of defendants that the Act is unconstitutional.
II. Factual Background
Defendant, Turfway Park Racing Association, Inc.…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kentucky Division, Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Turfway Park Racing Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Kentucky Division v. Turfway Park Racing AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Pigeons' Roost, Inc. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1999