## Facts

- Florida’s pari-mutuel wagering system historically included commercial greyhound racing.
- In 2018, voters approved a state constitutional amendment declaring humane treatment of animals a fundamental value and prohibiting racing greyhounds in connection with wagering after a phase-out ending January 1, 2021.
- Plaintiffs (an industry-support organization and greyhound-racing owners/operators) alleged they made substantial investments in racing dogs, facilities, equipment, and related business assets.
- Plaintiffs claimed the amendment destroyed the economic value of their businesses and property tied to wagering on greyhound racing, while the state continued to allow wagering on other forms of racing.
- Plaintiffs sued state officials in their official capacities seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement, asserting federal constitutional violations.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing and whether the pre-effective-date challenge was ripe.
2. Whether the Governor and Secretary of State were proper defendants for prospective relief under Ex parte Young or were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity due to insufficient enforcement connection.
3. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated claims that the amendment violated the Takings Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Contracts Clause, or substantive due process.

## Decision

- The court held plaintiffs had standing and that the claims were ripe.
- The court dismissed claims against the Governor and Secretary of State because they lacked a sufficient connection to enforcement, so prospective-relief claims against them were barred or otherwise improper.
- The court allowed that the Attorney General had a sufficient enforcement connection for Ex parte Young purposes, but dismissed all claims against her for failure to state a claim.
- The motion to dismiss was granted in full, with plaintiffs permitted to seek further amendment or pursue appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Ex parte Young permits prospective relief against a state officer only when the officer has a specific enforcement connection to the challenged law; generalized executive authority is insufficient.
- A regulatory restriction that eliminates a particular profitable use, without governmental appropriation or total deprivation of all economically beneficial use, generally does not constitute a compensable taking.
- Under rational basis review, economic and social regulations not involving suspect classifications or fundamental rights are upheld if any conceivable legitimate purpose supports them; under-inclusiveness does not invalidate the classification.
- Contracts Clause claims require identification of specific contractual obligations and a substantial impairment; regulation in a heavily regulated industry makes further regulatory change more foreseeable and can weaken impairment allegations.
- Substantive due process does not protect a fundamental right to operate a particular gambling-related enterprise; absent a fundamental right, rational basis review applies, and legislation is upheld if reasonably related to legitimate public interests.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a constitutional challenge to Florida’s voter-approved ban on wagering-linked greyhound racing, holding the plaintiffs could sue but failed to plead viable takings, equal protection, contracts, or substantive due process claims, and that only the Attorney General had a sufficient enforcement connection for prospective relief.


Support Working Animals, Inc. v. DeSantis, 457 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (N.D. Fla. 2020)