Gulfstream Park Decoupling Effort Dealt Court Setback

A Florida state court judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Gulfstream Park that sought to allow decoupling of its Thoroughbred racing program from it operation of slot machines. The court case, initiated in 2025 by the South Florida racetrack, named the Florida Gaming Control Commission as the sole defendant. According to the court's order dismissing the case, the FGCC is charged with enforcing the gaming laws and "would presumably take enforcement action against (Gulfstream Park if it) were to stop offering thoroughbred racing." A motion to dismiss Gulfstream's case filed by the FGGC in 2025 was granted Aug. 11 by Judge Joshua Hawkes. According to Hawkes' order granting the motion, the Florida Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, which was allowed to intervene in the case last year, supported dismissal of Gulfstream's lawsuit. By popular vote in 2004, the Florida Constitution established, according to Hawkes' order, "a conditional and geographically limited right to operate slot machines within existing, licensed pari-mutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, subject to county-wide voter approval and legislative implementation. … (T)he Florida Legislature implemented the provision... which imposes extensive licensing, operational, and financial requirements." According to the order, "Approximately five years ago, the Legislature decoupled parimutuels, which is an industry term that means parimutuels no longer had to offer live events (dog races, jai alai, harness racing, etc.) and could still offer slot machine gaming. All but one parimutuel, that is. Plaintiff (Gulfstream Park) still has to offer live thoroughbred racing in order to keep its slot machine license. Plaintiff now challenges that law as an unconstitutional special law and seeks to enjoin Defendant from enforcing it." Gulfstream contended that it was being subjected to unlawful "special legislation" and was being denied equal protection of the law under the Florida Constitution. "The Court determines the decoupling provision operates as a general law within Florida’s broader pari-mutuel regulatory framework," Hawkes wrote. "The Legislature’s use of the 'thoroughbred permitholder' classification is a valid, industry-based classification that operates uniformly on all members of that class and bears a reasonable relationship to statewide purposes within the pari-mutuel and gaming scheme. … The statute classifies by permit type and operates uniformly on the class, supporting treatment as a general law rather than a special law." In denying Gulfstream's equal protection argument, Hawkes wrote, "the statute must be upheld if any conceivable rational basis supports the classification, and Plaintiff must negate every conceivable basis. The Court finds legitimate governmental interests, including regulation of gambling and pari-mutuel wagering, promotion of tourism and revenues associated with live racing, and interests specific to the thoroughbred industry, and concludes the live-racing requirement for thoroughbred permitholders is rationally related to those interests." Gulfstream Park has appeal rights, meaning Hawkes' decision may not be the end of the litigation. Concurrent efforts to convince the state legislature to allow decoupling have, so far, failed.