Churchill Downs Scores Big Win Against Michigan in TwinSpires Betting Case

Posted on: August 7, 2025, 07:52h. 

Last updated on: August 7, 2025, 07:52h.

Philip Conneller @casinoorgphilc Read More
Expertise: Gaming Business, Regulation, Tribal Gaming.
  • Appeals court upholds TwinSpires operation during legal battle.
  • Churchill Downs cites Interstate Horseracing Act and Constitution.

Churchill Downs received a boost in its ongoing legal battle against the state of Michigan this week after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to halt a lower‑court injunction that allows its TwinSpires betting platform to continue operating in the state.

TwinSpires, Churchill Downs, Michigan Gaming Control Board, Interstate Horseracing Act, advance-deposit wagering (ADW)
Churchill Downs argues that its TwinSpires Racebook, shown above, is protected under the federal Interstate Horseracing Act and the Interstate Commerce Clause. The latest court ruling sided with the Kentucky-based operator, allowing TwinSpires to continue operating in Michigan while litigation proceeds. (Image: TwinSpires)

The Kentucky-based operator is in a standoff with the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB), which has called TwinSpires’ advance-deposit wagering (ADW) operations illegal.

At issue is Michigan’s licensing requirement under its 1995 Horse Racing Law, which mandates that ADW and simulcast operators must partner with a licensed racetrack in the state.

TwinSpires had previously partnered with Northville Downs, but the track has relocated and its new facility is not yet approved by the MGCB. And because Thoroughbred racing ended in Michigan in 2018 – and Standardbred races only continued until early 2024 – no licensed racetrack was available at the start of 2025.

Cease and Desist

That prompted the MGCB to issue a summary suspension in December 2024, ordering TwinSpires — and other platforms like Xpressbet, NYRAbets, and TVG Network — to cease offering account wagering to Michigan residents as of January 1 because they lacked a valid in‑state track partner.

While other ADW operators complied with the directive, Churchill Downs stuck to its guns and sued, arguing the in-state partner mandate violates the federal Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) of 1978.

Congress enacted IHA to “regulate interstate commerce with respect to wagering on horseracing, in order to further the horseracing and legal off-track betting industries in the United States.”

The Act sought to settle the issue of interstate parimutuel wagering on horseraces to ensure that states continued to “cooperate with one another in the acceptance of legal interstate wagers,” according to the lawsuit.

The Churchill Downs complaint also argues that the policy is discriminatory toward out-of-state operators and thus violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

“It is no different than if Michigan required any online retailer to partner with an in-state brick-and-mortar store before it could accept orders from individuals in Michigan. States cannot condition access to ‘local demand’ for interstate commerce on economic support for local businesses,” the lawsuit asserts.

IHA Conflict    

On February 19, U.S. District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou granted a preliminary injunction in favor of TwinSpires, ruling that Michigan’s rule likely conflicts with IHA.

The MGCB appealed, seeking to stay the injunction. On August 1, the Sixth Circuit denied the request, effectively siding with Churchill Downs and allowing TwinSpires to keep accepting Michigan bets as litigation continues.

The appeals court reaffirmed that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state statutes, quoting the IHA’s intent to “prevent interference by one State with the gambling policies of another, and to ensure states continue to cooperate.”

The case is ongoing, but for now, TwinSpires remains live in Michigan.