U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 57— INTERSTATE HORSERACING

15 U.S.C. § 3001

Congressional findings and policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Congress finds that—(1) the States should have the primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders;(2) the Federal Government should prevent interference by one State with the gambling policies of another, and should act to protect identifiable national interests; and(3) in the limited area of interstate off-track wagering on horseraces, there is a need for Federal action to ensure States will continue to cooperate with one another in the acceptance of legal interstate wagers.(b) It is the policy of the Congress in this chapter to regulate interstate commerce with respect to wagering on horseracing, in order to further the horseracing and legal off-track betting industries in the United States.(Pub. L. 95–515, § 2, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1811.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 95–515, § 9, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1815, provided that:“(a) The provisions of this Act [this chapter] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 25, 1978], and, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, shall apply to any interstate off-track wager accepted on or after such date of enactment.“(b)(1) The provisions of this Act [this chapter] shall not apply to any interstate off-track wager which is accepted pursuant to a contract existing on May 1, 1978.“(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any form of legal non-parimutuel off-track betting existing in a State on May 1, 1978.“(3) The provisions of subsection (b) of section 5 of this Act [section 3004(b) of this title] shall not apply to any parimutuel off-track betting system existing on May 1, 1978, in a State which does not conduct parimutuel horseracing on the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 25, 1978].”

Short Title

Pub. L. 95–515, § 1, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1811, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Monarch Content Mgmt. LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Gaming, 971 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Monarch Content Mgmt. LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Gaming, 971 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 7× “DEP’T OF GAMING 5 OPINION HURWITZ, Circuit Judge: The central issue in this case is whether the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C. §§ 3001–3007 (“IHA”), preempts Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
Lewis Stein Vs. Dep't of Law & Pub. Saf., New Jersey Racing Comm'n (new Jersey Racing Comm'n), 203 A.3d 160 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). · cites it 3× “" 15 U.S.C. § 3001 (b). Among other things, the IHA provides that the states "have the primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders.”
Gulfstream Park Racing v. Tampa Bay Downs, 948 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 2× “" 15 U.S.C. § 3001 (a)(1) (2000). In regulating the "limited area of interstate off-track wagering," the IHA simply requires a written contract between the facility conducting the race and transmitting the simulcast signal and the facility receiving the simulcast signal.”
In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 434 B.R. 131 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 3× “Under the Racing Law and federal laws, see 15 U.S.C. § 3001 (a)(1) (“the States should have primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders”), OTB must receive approval from the Racing and Wagering Board to simulcast…”
Kentucky Div., Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n v. Turfway Park Racing Ass'n, 20 F.3d 1406 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “2d 368 (1980), Congress noted that it enacted the Act to further both the horseraeing and interstate off-track wagering industries, 15 U.S.C. § 3001 (b), and to ensure that each state be empowered to control the gambling within its own borders.”
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003). · cites it 3× “TBD and the other thoroughbred racetracks cannot compete to accept wagers from the ITWS sites within sixty miles of their competitor’s site, because Section 3004(b) of the Interstate Horseracing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3001 , et seq. (the “IHA”), requires an ITWS site within sixty…”
Redrock Admin. Servs. LLC v. Magna Ent. Corp. (In Re Magna Ent. Corp.), 438 B.R. 380 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq. They cite the provision in the federal statute that defines a pari-mutuel wagering system as “any system whereby wagers with respect to the outcome of a horserace are placed with, or in, a wagering pool conducted by a person licensed or otherwise…”
The New York Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. & New York State Labor Relations Bd., 708 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1983). “The State Board also considers it significant that in enacting the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq., to regulate interstate wagering on horse racing and to prevent states from interfering with each other’s regulations, Congress made an express finding…”
Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Fam. Trust Found. of Kentucky, Inc., 423 S.W.3d 726 (Ky. 2014). “KRS Chapter 230 requires all authorized horse race wagering in Kentucky to be based upon a pari-mutuel system of wagering.”
Churchill Downs Inc. v. Trout, 767 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2014). “On the other hand, the Commission makes the preliminary argument that the dormant Commerce Clause is completely inapplicable because, in the Interstate Horseracing Act, Congress expressly authorized the states to pass statutes that would otherwise violate the dormant Commerce…”
Saratoga Harness Racing Inc. v. Veneglia, 897 F. Supp. 38 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). · cites it 2× “One of the reasons such concerted undertakings by horsemen’s associations are theoretically possible is because under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq., local horsemen’s associations are guaranteed a power of consent to interstate simulcasting:…”
Hialeah, Inc. v. Florida Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n, 899 F. Supp. 616 (S.D. Fla. 1995). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 3001 (a)(3) (1995). Consequently, in 1978 Congress passed the Interstate Horseracing Act, 15 U.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.