## Facts

- Eric Brooks, Jeffrey Yass, and Kenneth Brodie formed a Pennsylvania partnership to pool funds and place large wagers at racetracks nationwide.
- Chicago Downs Association, Inc., a private Illinois corporation, operated harness racing at Sportsman’s Park under an Illinois license.
- Sportsman’s Park offered a pari-mutuel “Super Bet” requiring bettors to select multiple finishers across specified races; if not won, the pool rolled over to the next race date.
- In April 1985, plaintiffs wagered about $60,000 on the Super Bet and won roughly $600,000.
- In July 1985, Chicago Downs barred two plaintiffs from entering as they attempted to place a $250,000 Super Bet wager, and later notified counsel that all plaintiffs would be denied entry on future dates.
- Plaintiffs alleged the exclusion was motivated by the track’s desire to prevent large wagers that could result in large payouts.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction seeking injunctive relief compelling the track to admit them.
- The district court dismissed, accepting the track’s position that Illinois law permits exclusion of patrons for any reason except prohibited discrimination; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Under Illinois law, may a privately owned, state-licensed racetrack exclude patrons for any reason or no reason, subject only to statutory civil-rights limits?
2. Does the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975 impose a “just cause” requirement for excluding ordinary patrons (as opposed to state-licensed racing participants)?
3. Do bettors have a protectable entitlement or property interest in continued admission to a privately owned racetrack because of prior admission and the regulatory setting?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held that Illinois follows the traditional common-law rule permitting proprietors of racetracks and similar private amusements to exclude patrons at will.
- The at-will exclusion rule is constrained by anti-discrimination law; exclusion may not be based on race, color, creed, national origin, or sex.
- The court concluded the Horse Racing Act’s “just cause” protections apply to licensees and do not create comparable rights for ordinary patrons.
- Because plaintiffs did not allege exclusion on a protected ground, their claim for compelled admission failed as a matter of Illinois law.

## Legal Principles

- In Illinois, a private racetrack operator may exclude a patron for any reason or no reason, so long as the decision is not based on prohibited discrimination.
- Statutory “just cause” requirements in the horse-racing regulatory scheme protect state licensees (e.g., racing professionals) and do not extend to the general betting public absent clear legislative direction.
- A regulatory license to operate a racetrack does not, by itself, convert the operator into a public actor or create a patron’s entitlement to entry.
- In diversity cases, federal courts apply and, where necessary, predict state common law by considering statutory structure and the absence of contrary state precedent.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit concluded that Illinois preserves the common-law right of a private racetrack to bar betting patrons at will, limited only by applicable civil-rights prohibitions, and therefore upheld dismissal of bettors’ request for an injunction compelling admission.


Brooks v. Chi. Downs Ass’n, Inc., 791 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1986)