First they pushed for legislative action. Now, they’re looking to the courts.
The Gulfstream Park Racing Association is asking the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the Decoupling Act passed by the Legislature in 2021, arguing it is unconstitutional because it aids rival slot machine operators.
The 2021 legislation decoupled all other parimutuel operators, seven in total, meaning they are allowed to operate slot machines at their facilities without having to run live racing or host jai alai.
Meanwhile, Gulfstream Park must meet specific requirements for thoroughbred racing in order to maintain its slot license. While Gulfstream Park is not the only thoroughbred racing facility in the state, it is the only one that operates slots, which means the law singled out its facility while allowing all others to operate under a different, more loose set of rules.
The lawsuit, filed by Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart against the Florida Gaming Control Commission, argues the law represents an unconstitutional special law, citing Article III, Section 10 of the state constitution, which bars passage of any special laws pertaining to a “grant of privilege to a private corporation.”
It further alleges that the law violates Gulfstream Park’s right to equal protection under the Florida Constitution, and its right under the constitution to operate slot machines.
The lawsuit asks for a declaration that the Decoupling Act was unconstitutional and a permanent injunction blocking the Florida Gaming Control Commission from requiring Gulfstream Park to run a full calendar of live racing as a condition for holding and maintaining its slot machine license, or from suspending its license for failing to be in compliance with the live racing requirements.
“The law on its face is anti-free markets, with the government picking winners and losers with its legislation,” said Marie Long, General Counsel for 1/ST, Gulfstream Park’s parent company.
“This is a matter of fair and equal treatment under the law, which the Decoupling Act clearly and intentionally violates. This is not about racing — we are committed to a sustainable future for racing. It’s about our inability to compete with the private slot operators who don’t have to meet the same obligations we must meet to run our business because they receive special treatment at our expense.”
The state first allowed parimutuel operators to have slot machines in 2004. At that time, all competitors were required to also operate live races — from harness to greyhound racing.
But after greyhound racing was banned in 2018, the state began allowing operators to maintain their slot licenses without offering live racing. That provision was memorialized in the 2021 law, but it carved out thoroughbred racing, directly blocking Gulfstream Park from being able to operate under the same rules as its competitors and thus, the lawsuit argues, offering an unfair advantage.
In addition to requiring live racing to maintain its slot permit, the law further implemented penalties to Gulfstream Park if it did not continue live racing under the law’s terms, including losing its slot license.
Gulfstream Park backed proposed legislation this year that would have decoupled thoroughbred racing from slot machine permit requirements, leveling the playing field for all parimutuel operators without singling out and disadvantaging Gulfstream Park. But the legislation failed, leaving operators to pursue a Plan B.
“We believe the Legislature can and should resolve this matter fairly and swiftly, however we are seeking relief from the Court to protect and uphold the Constitutional rights granted to us by Florida voters in 2005,” Long said.
“Florida has long been recognized as a business-friendly state, and we urge it to maintain that reputation. In this case, the approach taken is inconsistent with that tradition. While we hope the Legislature acts promptly, we ask the Courts to ensure fairness and protect the principles of a free and competitive market.”
Post Views: 0