End of Road for ‘Claiming Rule’ Challenge

Owner Jerry Jamgotchian’s lengthy battle to overturn Kentucky regulations that restrict when and where a horse can run after being claimed in the state has hit the end of the road, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of his petition to hear the case.

The court’s decision not to hear the case was posted, without comment, as part of the orders for Nov. 28.

Jamgotchian, known in racing circles as “Jammer,” challenged the Kentucky regulation that states a claimed horse cannot race at any track other than the one at which it was claimed, until the track takes entries for the final race card of the meet where the claim took place.

In addition to Kentucky, Jamgotchian has filed state and federal lawsuits against other jurisdictions over similar regulations that impose what is referred to as “jail time” because of restrictions placed on claimed horses.

The owner wanted to run Rochitta, who was claimed for $42,000 on May 21, 2011, at Churchill Downs, at Hollywood Casino at Penn National prior to the taking of entries for the final day of the Churchill meet in early July. Jamgotchian never ran the horse at Penn National and eventually filed suit against the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and its then-executive director, chairman, and vice chairman, contending such rules are unconstitutional because they violate the Commerce Clause regarding interstate commerce. Rochitta did run at Presque Isle Downs in Pennsylvania upon conclusion of the Churchill meet.

In a 2012 ruling, a Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of the KHRC, stating the rule is reasonable and does not discriminate against interstate commerce.

"The court finds that the administrative regulation is a proper exercise of the commission's regulatory authority that does not, on its face, discriminate against interstate commerce, that any incidental burden on interstate commerce as a result of this regulation is slight, and that the local benefits of the regulation outweigh any burden on interstate commerce," the ruling stated.



"The purpose and effect of the regulation in question is not to give preference to any individual in-state private party, but to nurture and promote the market for race horses, and to ensure that the public, as a whole, will benefit from the stronger fields and more competitive races that will result," the ruling stated.

Subsequent rulings by the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upholding the regulations led to Jamgotchian’s U.S. Supreme Court petition.

In the U.S. Supreme Court filing, Jamgotchian’s Lexington attorneys Richard Getty, Kristopher D. Collman, and Paul E. Salamanca, not only argued the regulations violate the Commerce Clause but also cited discrepancies between claiming race regulations in Kentucky and California as grounds for the case to be heard.

California previously had similarly restrictive claiming race regulations, but upon a challenge from Jamgotchian, waived and later amended its rules.

“Their contrary positions thus create precisely the kind of conflict that this Court has historically sought to resolve—divergent constructions of the federal Constitution in different jurisdictions,” the petition stated.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision concluding that such regulations violate the Commerce Clause “would resolve an area of substantial uncertainty in a major industry with operations in a vast majority of the states,” the filing stated.