Real horse racing reform must be constitutional. That’s why we should replace HISA | Opinion
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- HISA was ruled unconstitutional twice by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The RHSA proposes state-led enforcement via interstate compact with federal backing.
- Critics cite HISA’s high costs, unclear rules and lack of accountable oversight.
As the Triple Crown season captures the nation’s attention, so too does the renewed debate over how best to ensure the safety, integrity and future of horse racing. This critical conversation has reached the halls of Congress, where Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) and Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) introduced the Racehorse Health and Safety Act (RHSA, S.1770/H.R.3378) last week. The bill proposes a constitutionally sound path forward for regulating the sport and addressing longstanding concerns.
Let’s be clear: the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) has been declared unconstitutional twice by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Not once—twice. That’s not speculation or political opinion; that’s settled constitutional law from a federal appellate court.
HISA’s structure—which empowers a private corporation to exercise federal regulatory authority—violates core principles of democratic governance. And now, the law is headed for review by the Supreme Court.
No amount of favorable press or selective praise can change this fact: HISA is widely viewed as unconstitutional.
The RHSA was designed to restore legal enforcement, accountability and collaboration among all stakeholders in racing’s regulation. It does so by establishing the RHSA as an interstate compact, with federal authorization for states to participate. Compacts are well-established constitutional tool that allows states to work together within the bounds of federalism. Additionally, the RHSA returns enforcement authority to state racing commissions, where it rightfully belongs under our system of government. It provides the uniformity the sport needs without repeating the mistake of delegating power to an unaccountable private entity.
Critics have been quick to dismiss the RHSA as a “zombie” bill, attacking it with rhetorical contempt that overlooks both legal reality and the need for practical reform. These arguments don’t just miss the mark — they sidestep the core issue at stake: the rule of law.
HISA defenders argue that the law has made racing “safer.” But that’s a public relations narrative, not verified science. For many horsemen and women, the reality under HISA has been confusion, excessive cost, fear of arbitrary enforcement and a growing sense of cynicism with a system that seems more focused on control than care.
Moreover, the idea that state commissions are incapable of enforcement is a convenient myth used to justify federal overreach. The real issue prior to HISA was not incompetence or enforcement, it was the inconsistency of regulations. The RHSA doesn’t disrupt our stakeholder-vetted uniform rules under the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) Model Rules. Instead, it provides for legal, state-based enforcement.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on HISA’s legality, Congress still has time to act ahead of the decision. Lawmakers should support the RHSA — not just because it’s constitutional, but because it offers real reform, driven by genuine industry input.
The path forward isn’t more federal overreach; it’s federal respect. Respect for the Constitution, for the states and for the horsemen and women who make horse racing what it is.
If we truly want to preserve the sport for future generations, it’s time for both the industry and Congress to back the Racehorse Health and Safety Act (S.1770/H.R.3378). Let’s fix what HISA broke and improve racing the right way.
Eric Hamelbakc is the CEO of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association.