Judge Denies Injunction In Serpe Suit Vs. HISA, But Leaves Door Open For Refile Of Key Seventh Amendment Claim

[Wandering Eyes]

In a federal court case involving the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) that is being closely watched because it involves a trainer's allegations of a wrongful denial of Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial, a judge in Florida on Thursday denied conditioner Phil Serpe's request for preliminary injunction in a lawsuit initiated last October against the HISA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The civil complaint involves “banned substance” sanctions stemming from the alleged detection of clenbuterol in an Aug. 10, 2024, Saratoga Race Course winner from the 66-year-old trainer's stable.

Although Serpe's underlying lawsuit will proceed without any injunction being granted for the time being while his contested Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) case separately plays out at the FTC arbitration level, Judge David Leibowitz of United States District Court (Southern District of Florida) wrote in his May 29 order that because that FTC arbitration process has not yet been completed, the court will leave open the opportunity for Serpe to refile his Seventh Amendment injunction claim at a later time.

“The FTC does not become involved or take any action until after arbitration is completed,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff's arbitration is scheduled for June 2025. So, until the FTC's administrative law judge is called upon to review the Authority's sanction decision, if any, Plaintiff's claim as to the FTC is not ripe,” the judge wrote.

“While the merits of Mr. Serpe's Seventh Amendment claim may ultimately win the race, this Court will not grant extraordinary relief before the starter's gate has even opened,” the judge wrote.

So even though Serpe appears to have suffered a blow to his case on technical grounds with the denial of the injunction, the fact that the judge stressed Serpe's option to refile his Seventh Amendment claims later in the administrative process could be viewed as encouraging for the trainer.

TDN reached out to both Serpe's attorney and to HISA get opinions from both sides on the denial of the injunction and the judge's seemingly telling words about the Seventh Amendment claim possibly prevailing in the long run.

Saratoga grandstand and main track | Sarah Andrew

But a HISA spokesperson wrote in a Thursday afternoon email that the Authority would have no comment, while Serpe's attorney did not respond to an emailed query prior to deadline for this story.

In a civil complaint filed seven months ago, Serpe's legal team had asked the court to “declare HISA and the HISA Rules to be unconstitutional, preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing HISA and the HISA Rules against Serpe, and dissolve and vacate the Authority's provisional suspension against Serpe.”

Some of Serpe's “private nondelegation doctrine” allegations of unconstitutionality share common legal underpinnings with at least eight other lawsuits spawned in the federal court system over the past four years in which the powers of HISA, HIWU and the FTC and have been challenged by various individuals and entities representing horsemen and other HISA-regulated parties.

But Serpe's Oct. 17, 2024, complaint was unique in that it stated that, “HISA and the HISA Rules violate the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial.”

Initially, Serpe was facing a provisional suspension, plus a two-year period of ineligibility and a fine of up to $25,000 if HISA's clenbuterol allegations were proven against him.

But HISA had announced on Nov. 4, 2024, that it was directing HIWU to impose provisional suspensions only in limited circumstances, thus lifting all in-effect provisional suspensions (including Serpe's) while the Authority reviewed whether any “modifications to the current rules are appropriate.”

And on Apr. 23, 2025, HIWU informed Serpe that it would be dropping its pursuit of the $25,000 penalty–a move that Serpe's legal team termed in a court filing was actually part of “a concerted effort with HIWU to prejudicially moot Serpe's [Seventh Amendment] claims during the pendency of this case.”

In his May 29 order on the injunction denial, Judge Leibowitz wrote that he was well aware of the number of other constitutionality cases that have been brought against HISA in the federal court system, although he noted that Serpe's case stands out because of its Seventh Amendment aspect.

Three of those other cases have already been decided at the federal appeals court level (two in favor of HISA's constitutionality and one against). And in each of those three lawsuits, the losing party at the appeals court level has initiated legal action in the U.S. Supreme Court that could lead to the nation's highest court deciding once and for all whether the 2020 law that governs the sport in America is constitutional or not.

“Plaintiff Philip Serpe's challenge to HISA's constitutionality is not the only one making its way through the federal courts,” the judge stated in his order. “Plaintiffs residing in horseracing country have lodged challenges to both HISA's delegation of rulemaking authority to [a] private-entity [as well as to] HISA's enforcement scheme.

Phil Serpe | Sarah Andrew

“Plaintiffs' Seventh Amendment challenge to HISA has been asserted (albeit tangentially) at the district court level, but no district court or court of appeals has squarely addressed the Seventh Amendment challenge to date,” the judge wrote.

“Because the United States Supreme Court has yet to decide the private nondelegation question, this Court stayed that issue in [Serpe's] case and directed the parties to brief only Plaintiff's Seventh Amendment challenge,” the judge wrote.

While the judge denied the injunction against the FTC for the “ripeness” reasons explained above, Leibowitz also wrote that, “as for a preliminary injunction against the Authority, Plaintiff fails to show irreparable harm.”

The judge continued, in a different part of the order: “Serpe contends that Defendants' ability to impose a civil monetary penalty against him in the absence of a jury violates his Seventh Amendment rights…. The Authority responds that there is no violation here because HISA's enforcement scheme falls 'plainly under the “public rights” exception,' to the Seventh Amendment.

“Serpe points to several types of harm that he says are 'irreparable' such that a preliminary injunction is warranted,” the judge wrote. “First, Serpe points to his provisional suspension from horseracing. However, since Serpe filed the instant Motion, 'the Authority has lifted all provisional suspensions (including Plaintiff's) outside a narrow category of circumstances inapplicable here.'

“Nevertheless, Serpe argues the Authority's lifting of provisional suspensions was without lawful effect because the Authority lacks authority to lift suspensions and its pronouncement doing so violated its own rules governing rulemaking,” the order stated. “As a result, Serpe says his horseracing status remains uncertain and his harm is, therefore, irreparable.

“The Court disagrees with Serpe on this point. Serpe continues to be allowed to train horses to compete in races. Consequently, his reliance on the now-lifted provisional suspension does not show 'irreparable harm,'” the judge wrote.

“Apart from the now-lifted provisional suspension, Serpe says his lost business and consumer goodwill as well as his subjection to an alleged 'unconstitutional proceeding' constitute irreparable harm,” the judge wrote.

“Although lost business and customer goodwill may constitute irreparable harm in certain circumstances, subjection to an unconstitutional process in-and-of-itself does not,” the judge wrote.

“Serpe's claimed harms are not irreparable because he may pursue a remedy against the Authority for money damages in the event of a constitutional violation that causes harm,” the judge wrote.

Quoting from a legal precedent, the judge continued: “The key word in this consideration is irreparable. Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough. The possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.”

The post Judge Denies Injunction In Serpe Suit Vs. HISA, But Leaves Door Open For Refile Of Key Seventh Amendment Claim appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

View the full article