Churchill Downs Inc. (CDI) v. Texas Racing Commission (TRC)

USDC Order Dismissing Dormant Commerce Clause Challenge

more+
less-

The USDC for Western District of Texas (Austin Division) found that the Texas "in-person" gaming requirement with respect to advanced deposit wagering does not discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce. The court also found that the Texas Racing Commission Defendants demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that the "in-person" regulatory requirement comported with the demands of the US Constitution and does not transgress the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) doctrine. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case brought by Plaintiff Churchill Downs and entered judgment on behalf of the Defendants.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Decision | Federal, 5th Circuit, Texas | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ian Imrich, Law Offices of Ian J. Imrich, APC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×