Judge Denies Injunction Sought By Mixed-Meet Vet Who Argues HISA’s Rules Don’t Cover Meds Meant For Quarter Horses

[Wandering Eyes]

A federal judge denied a preliminary injunction Oct. 22 in a lawsuit initiated 3 1/2 months ago by a Sunland Park-based veterinarian against the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) and Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU).

The case involves anti-constitutionality claims that are similar to a number of other lawsuits swirling in the federal court system. But the civil complaint filed by Jason Scott, DVM, is unique because it raises the issue of what happens when a mixed-meet vet is found in possession of medications that are prohibited for use in HISA-covered Thoroughbreds, but the vet claims those substances were solely intended for Quarter Horses, whose regulation is outside of HISA's jurisdiction.

United States District Judge Sarah Davenport (District of New Mexico) wrote in Wednesday's order that Scott “has not established irreparable harm for any of his claims.”

The order means the veterinarian's underlying lawsuit can still proceed, but without the injunction he requested. The judge also opted not to have the court interfere in a scheduled arbitration hearing between HIWU and Scott that is set for Nov. 19.

Scott's lawsuit stems from a Feb. 13, 2025, search of his truck at Sunland, during which HIWU agents found bottles of the injectables Sarapin (an analgesic also known as Pitcher plant extract) and Adenosine Monophosphate (a vasodilator commonly referred to as AMP).

Both are listed under HISA rules as “banned” substances that are never to be found in any covered Thoroughbred or possessed on any HISA-regulated grounds.
Scott's lawsuit, filed July 3, stated that the Authority's published rules “never clarify” how “practicing veterinarians with a Mixed Practice [that caters to both Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses at the same track] must adjust their day-to-day business to comply with federal law.”

The judge rejected that line of reasoning.

“Plaintiff accuses the Authority of not 'provid[ing] a single word of guidance as to how Covered Veterinarians must alter their practice to comply with Rule 3214(a),'” the judge wrote. “The Court disagrees; the way veterinarians 'must alter their practice' to comport with Rule 3214(a) is by refraining from the conduct it proscribes, i.e. possessing banned substances or banned methods.

“Those substances are enumerated in the Authority's 'Prohibited List,' leaving scant room for confusion over what can and cannot be possessed,” the order stated.

“Further, Plaintiff's statement that 'possession is not the fact on which liability depends' is simply untrue,” the judge wrote. “Possession is the exact fact on which liability depends and 'delineates [the Rule's] reach in words of common understanding.'”

The judge further wrote that in general terms, a regulation “need not spell out all situations” where an activity is prohibited.

“Veterinarians can always comply with Rule 3214 by not possessing the substances it prohibits,” the judge wrote.

In his complaint, Scott brought three main challenges to HISA and Rule 3214:

1) That Congress's creation of the Authority violates separation of powers principles and the non-delegation doctrine; 2) That Rule 3214, the possession rule, was promulgated in violation of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act and is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment, and 3) That “the Act and the FTC Order unconstitutionally assign private causes of action tried to a jury at common law to an administrative tribunal, in violation of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.”

Supreme Court | Getty

HISA had responded to those charges in an August court filing by claiming that Scott was seeking his preliminary injunction “based on kitchen-sink claims.”

According to HISA, the only “imminent inconvenience” Scott alleged in seeking the injunction was “having to participate in private arbitration on the banned-substances charge” while remaining “free to continue treating covered horses or otherwise engage in horseracing activities without limitation.”

Judge Davenport relied on four planks to flesh out the order denying the injunction.

“The Court's analysis begins and ends with the most critical factor-irreparable harm,” the judge wrote.

“Requiring Plaintiff to proceed before the Authority does not constitute per se irreparable harm, even if the Authority's power is unconstitutional under separation-of-powers principles,” the Oct. 22 order stated.

“Any costs Plaintiff incurs from defending against arbitration and the imposition of civil fines do not result in irreparable harm because Plaintiff can recover monetary damages from HIWU and HISA,” the order stated.

“Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process claim fails on the merits and therefore does not result in irreparable harm,” the judge wrote.

“Plaintiff has not identified an irreparable harm resulting from the alleged Seventh Amendment violation,” the order stated.

In addition, Davenport wrote that Scott's reliance on precedents “finding that the loss of a professional license is a type of forfeiture, and therefore require a jury, are inapposite.”

That's because, the judge wrote, “The Authority cannot revoke Dr. Scott's veterinary license; it can only prevent him from participating in covered races and events.”

The post Judge Denies Injunction Sought By Mixed-Meet Vet Who Argues HISA’s Rules Don’t Cover Meds Meant For Quarter Horses appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

View the full article