A day before a scheduled March 19 federal court hearing in Louisville, Ky., over disputed assessment fees issued by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority to Churchill Downs Inc., the parties offered sharply differing accounts explaining the financial impasse in letters to the court issued March 18.
Thomas H. Dupree Jr., counsel for CDI, wrote to United States District Judge Benjamin Beaton that HISA issued an "extraordinary order" March 16, requiring the company to pay approximately $5.27 million within 10 days or face the suspension of racing at Churchill Downs, Turfway Park, Ellis Park, and Presque Isle Downs.
The order stems from a HISA board panel decision finding that CDI failed to pay the required 2025 assessment fees for its racetracks under HISA jurisdiction. Those fees fund HISA's national safety and integrity programs, including drug testing and racetrack oversight.
HISA is a federally authorized, private, self-regulatory organization created to establish and enforce uniform safety and integrity rules across most Thoroughbred racing in the United States.
These assessment fees, through last year, were to be calculated based on racing starts and purse distribution. Yet the $5.27 million HISA claims it is owed is based on this starts-only model, plus interest—which it deems CDI, which owns multiple tracks across the United States, would have to pay the organization at a minimum.
In its Monday decision, the HISA Board Panel determined Churchill Downs racetrack owes $2,408,501 in unpaid 2025 HISA assessment fees, plus $120,132 in interest; Turfway Park owes $1,436,186 and $71,634 in interest; Ellis Park owes $447,568 and $22,324 in interest; and Presque Isle Downs owes $732,593 and $36,540 in interest. Only Turfway Park is currently running a meet.
Per the board panel decision, if payment is not received, the tracks will not be allowed to conduct race days, applied to the next scheduled days at each track.
Dupree suggested to the court that CDI was prepared to ask Beaton to grant the track operator a temporary restraining order if HISA does not stay its March 26 compliance deadline. HISA counsel John Roach acknowledged CDI's stay request is pending before the Authority's board, though no timetable for that review was stated in this letter to the judge.
A temporary restraining order is an emergency, short-term court order designed to prevent immediate, irreparable harm—a standard Roach argues CDI would not experience.
"And any funds paid by Churchill to the Authority pursuant to the Board Panel's order—thereby obviating any risk of suspended racing—would be returned if Churchill prevailed in its categorical challenges to the new proceedings in the normal course," he wrote.
CDI argues that HISA lacks the authority to enforce payment through its internal disciplinary process. In its letter, Dupree also contends the amount demanded does not reflect a proper assessment but rather a partial figure based on an unlawful methodology. But that very methodology is the starts-only model beneficial to the track operator.
CDI's tracks all have gaming to supplement purses, meaning they would pay a much higher assessment in a model geared around both starts and purses.
"Congress did not authorize HISA to do what it is trying to do here—impose an excessive and unlawful assessment, and then try to collect a percentage of that excessive and unlawful assessment," Dupree wrote.
Dupree further raised constitutional objections to the court, including claims related to due process and the structure of HISA's enforcement system.
He further accused HISA of leaking the scheduled board panel hearing and the amount owed by CDI Feb. 18 to The New York Times, noting the morning release of a story that included an interview with HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus within an hour of CDI being served notice of the payment demand and it appearing on the HISA website. Lazarus did not dispute this in a subsequent interview on "At The Races With Steve Byk," noting that, "Unfortunately, the only thing that they respond to, it seems, is that sort of public pressure. And again, our hand was forced."
HISA's response to the judge disputed CDI's characterization of HISA overreaching its authority, and noted they have continued to receive services from HISA funded by the broader industry.
According to HISA, it engaged CDI throughout 2025 to resolve the dispute, including discussions that would have allowed CDI to pay under a starts-only formula. Only after those efforts failed did the authority initiate enforcement proceedings, it claims.
HISA also said the March 16 board panel order was designed to seek the minimum amount CDI could owe under any methodology—described as "the lowest amount" under either the original formula or CDI's preferred approach—while reserving the right to pursue additional sums depending on the outcome of the litigation.
CDI and the New York Racing Association sued HISA in late 2024 over its assessment model, and shortly thereafter, the Federal Trade Commission—which oversees HISA—approved proposed modifications to HISA's assessment model, shifting it to a starts-only basis beginning this year. That model is unfavorable to tracks that run longer meets and do not have gaming to support purses, with Emerald Downs in Washington being one notable example.
NYRA reached a settlement with HISA in early 2025 and withdrew from the lawsuit.
