Greyhound racing industry loses challenge to dog ban in Florida
TALLAHASSEE — A federal appeals court on Thursday dealt another blow to members of the greyhound-racing industry who have pursued a long-running legal challenge to a 2018 state constitutional amendment that ended dog racing in Florida.
A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge’s decision last year to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the group Support Working Animals, Inc., and individual plaintiffs.
The lawsuit has argued that the voter-approved ballot measure violated a series of rights under the U.S. Constitution, including equal-protection rights because horse racing was allowed to continue at pari-mutuel facilities while dog racing was blocked.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in April 2020 issued a 55-page ruling that rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments but allowed them to file an amended complaint. They did so, but Walker again dismissed the case because he said they did not have “standing” to sue Attorney General Ashley Moody over the racing ban.
The panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court, in a 16-page opinion Thursday, upheld the standing ruling and did not address the broader constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiffs.
The opinion said, in part, that the plaintiffs “have failed to show that any harm they have suffered, or are currently suffering, is traceable to the attorney general because they can’t demonstrate that she has any authority to enforce (the constitutional amendment).”
“The plaintiffs’ real problem, as we understand their complaint, is with (the amendment) itself — its existence — and the economic consequences that its passage has visited or will visit on their businesses,” said the opinion, written by Judge Kevin Newsom and joined by Judges Elizabeth Branch and Barbara Lagoa. “None of that, though, appears to be due to any past, present, or likely future conduct of the attorney general.”
Also, the ruling pointed to gambling laws passed during a May special legislative session that created a state gaming commission and authorized the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation to issue fines and impose other penalties if pari-mutuel facilities run greyhound races.
“We now know that prospective relief against the attorney general wouldn’t aid the plaintiffs because those bills charge other state agencies with enforcing (the constitutional amendment). The attorney general’s role in enforcing (the amendment) remains ‘highly speculative’ at best and non-existent at worst,” the opinion said, partially quoting a legal precedent.
In a footnote, however, the appeals court said the plaintiffs could refile the lawsuit against “proper parties,” though it did not say who those parties might be.
The state Constitution Revision Commission put the amendment on the November 2018 ballot after years of debate about Florida’s greyhound racing industry. While greyhound racing had 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.”