Churchill Downs secured a decisive legal victory over Michigan regulators in a case that tested how federal law governs advance-deposit wagering platforms in the United States. The Western Michigan District Court issued a summary judgment in favor of the racing operator, closing a dispute that has lasted more than a year and blocking the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) from enforcing state requirements against the TwinSpires wagering app.

The proceedings centered on whether Michigan could condition TwinSpires’ operation on obtaining a state license and partnering with an in-state racetrack. Churchill Downs argued that the federal Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) already regulates interstate wagering activity and does not permit states to impose additional consent requirements that complicate its operation. The MGCB maintained that its Horse Racing Law of 1995 required operators to be tethered to a local track before accepting bets from residents.

Summary Judgment Ends Michigan’s Licensing Enforcement

The final ruling followed multiple procedural steps. The court granted summary judgment, meaning it found no material factual disputes that would justify a full trial. Previous decisions in lower courts and the Sixth Circuit had already tilted the case toward Churchill Downs. The injunctions granted during the litigation allowed TwinSpires to continue operating in Michigan while the legal question moved through the courts.

As reported by SBC Americas, a summary judgment signals that the court viewed the issue as a matter of statutory interpretation rather than one requiring witness testimony or additional discovery. Judge Hala Yarbou issued a three-page explanation clarifying why the MGCB could no longer enforce state regulations that would require TwinSpires to obtain licensure under Michigan law.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed that the MGCB could not compel Churchill Downs to comply with Michigan’s licensing system, because it imposed an additional layer of state consent incompatible with the federal framework. As Judge Yarbou stated in a judgement (pdf), “The Sixth Circuit held that this licensing requirement conflicts with the methods chosen by Congress to achieve the IHA’s objectives because the requirement provides Michigan with veto power over a facilitator’s activities in a manner that was not contemplated by the IHA. Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit held that the licensing requirement ‘targets the federal scheme by bolting on an additional consent for wager acceptances’.”

Regulatory Context and National Implications

Churchill Downs’ legal position drew on the structure of the IHA, which governs interstate horse wagering. The operator argued that Michigan’s approach effectively granted the state approval authority over a federally regulated activity. The case traced back to early 2025, when the MGCB directed TwinSpires to halt operations after its previous licensing partner, Northville Downs, failed to secure a track license for a new facility. Rather than seek a replacement partner, Churchill Downs challenged the state requirement in federal court within days of the suspension order.

The litigation also influenced developments outside Michigan. Churchill Downs previously informed the Massachusetts Gaming Commission that it did not view state-level licensing tethering requirements as binding under the IHA, as the company explored ADW partnerships in that state through Raynham Park. Regulators in Massachusetts raised concerns about whether such an arrangement complied with their own rules.

TwinSpires has been inactive in states such as Texas and Utah, where no horse racing operations exist. During oral arguments at the Circuit Court level, Churchill Downs suggested that these states likewise lack authority to dictate ADW activity under the federal statute. Observers in the industry have indicated they will monitor whether the firm expands into markets previously viewed as off-limits following the Michigan outcome.

Court Aligns Final Decision With Sixth Circuit Ruling

The recent Michigan judgment made permanent the injunction that prevented regulators from blocking TwinSpires. It reinforced the Sixth Circuit’s December conclusion that Congress did not intend to allow states to attach additional licensing or consent obligations in the manner Michigan proposed. Judge Jarbou’s written decision aligned with that reasoning and closed the case without further trial proceedings.

The ruling arrives after a period of uncertainty that began when the MGCB pursued enforcement action. Michigan argued that Churchill Downs’ platform violated state law by accepting wagers without a licensed in-state partner after the Northville Downs relationship ended. Churchill Downs countered that the requirement ran against the federal intent of the IHA and amounted to a barrier to interstate commerce.

The case adds clarity to how courts may treat similar disputes. Legal analysts have noted that the framework established by the ruling could influence other states with tethering provisions or licensing language that resembles Michigan’s approach. Churchill Downs’ victory secures TwinSpires’ position in Michigan and strengthens the argument that ADW platforms compliant with federal standards cannot be shut down solely through state-level mechanisms.

• SCCG Management. The Gambling Industry’s Global Connector. Access Here.
• Source: https://news.worldcasinodirectory.com/michigan-court-upholds-churchill-downs-over-twinspires-case-121212