15 U.S.C. § 3003
Acceptance of interstate off-track wager
No person may accept an interstate off-track wager except as provided in this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Kentucky Div., Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n v. Turfway Park Racing Ass'n, 20 F.3d 1406 (6th Cir. 1994).
Kentucky Div., Horsemen's Benevolent & Prot. Ass'n v. Turfway Park Racing Ass'n, 20 F.3d 1406 (6th Cir. 1994). “§ 3003 , by transmitting interstate off-track telecasts for wagering purposes”; and, “violated the Interstate Horse-racing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3003 , by failing to obtain the appropriate consent of the host racing commission, pursuant to' 15 U.”
Churchill Downs Tech. Initiatives Co. v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd. (W.D. Mich. 2025). “Initiatives, 2025 WL 539972 , at *10-11 (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 3003 , 3004). That prohibition on “other” supervision or regulation over interstate off-track wagers applies to the MHRL; the IHA establishes the exclusive regulatory framework for the limited area of interstate…”
Churchill Downs Tech. Initiatives Co. v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd. (W.D. Mich. 2025). “15 U.S.C. § 3003 In this section, Congress makes clear that “[n]o person may accept an interstate off-track wager except as provided in this chapter.”
Monarch Content Mgmt. LLC v. Arizona Dep't of Gaming (D. Ariz. 2019). “” 15 U.S.C. §§ 3003 , 3004(a). A “host racing 24 association” is “any person who, pursuant to a license or other permission granted by the 25 host state, conducts the horserace subject to the interstate wager.”
New Mexico Horsemen's Ass'n v. Sunray Gaming of New Mexico, LLC (D.N.M. 2025). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 3003 , 3006(a); see generally Doc.”
New Mexico Horsemen's Ass'n v. Sunray Gaming of New Mexico, LLC (D.N.M. 2025). “Relevant here, the IHA states that interstate off-track wagers may be accepted by off-track betting systems only when consent is obtained from the host racing association, the host racing commission, and the off-track racing commission, as those terms are statutorily defined.”
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.