Chavdar Vasilev is a journalist covering the casino and sports betting market sectors for CasinoBeats. He joined CasinoBeats in May 2025 and reports on industry-shaping stories across the US and beyond, including legislative debates, market...
Read Full BioThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has sided again with Churchill Downs, affirming a preliminary injunction that blocks the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) from enforcing its horse racing licensing rules against the TwinSpires wagering platform.
In a December 16 opinion, the court ruled that Michigan’s attempt to require TwinSpires to obtain a state third-party facilitator license likely conflicts with the federal Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (IHA). The law governs wagering on horse racing and requires states to follow the federal framework.
Writing for the panel, Judge John Nalbandian said TwinSpires is “likely to show that the IHA preempts Michigan’s licensing requirement.” He added that the remaining injunction factors also favor Churchill Downs.
Court: Michigan Added a Requirement Congress Didn’t Authorize
The dispute centers on whether Michigan can impose its own licensing regime on an out-of-state advance-deposit wagering (ADW) operator that already complies with the IHA’s consent framework.
The Sixth Circuit said it cannot.
The opinion explains that Congress designed the IHA to involve only limited state participation in interstate wagering approvals:
“Congress intended to loop two states into the process—at least with respect to consents.”
Michigan’s Horse Racing Law goes further, the court found, by insisting that the federal scheme “isn’t enough,” which “poses an obstacle to the IHA.”
As a result, the panel concluded: “Michigan can’t condition the legality of interstate wagers on state requirements that add to the IHA’s consent scheme.”
How the Dispute Arose
Churchill Downs has offered ADW via TwinSpires in Michigan for many years. The TwinSpires brand also previously operated a regulated online sportsbook in the state before the company exited sports betting and iGaming in 2022.
888 Holdings later acquired the Michigan sportsbook license and has since transferred it to Hard Rock, which now operates Hard Rock Bet Michigan.
The dispute with MGCB began in December 2024, when the regulator issued a cease-and-desist order to the four off-track betting platforms: Xpressbet, NYRAbets, TVG Network, and TwinSpires.
While the other three complied, TwinSpires continued to operate, and the regulator revoked Churchill Downs’ ADW license in the state.
The operator responded with a lawsuit against MGCB in federal court, alleging its actions violated IHA.
In May, a U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction that allowed TwinSpires to continue operating in the state while the case is ongoing. The MGCB appealed and requested that the Sixth Circuit issue a stay. That would force TwinSpires to cease operations during the appeal process.
However, the court denied the motion to stay on August 1 and has now affirmed the injunction.
Irreparable Harm & Public Interest
The court also agreed that forcing TwinSpires offline would cause harm that could not be remedied later.
The opinion notes that TwinSpires warned it could “lose access to its 18,000 Michigan users” and that accusations of illegal gambling had damaged its reputation and customer goodwill.
Churchill Downs has previously highlighted TwinSpires as a significant contributor to its digital wagering business, including in its most recent quarterly earnings report.
On the public interest, the court was direct: “Enjoining the enforcement of a law that violates constitutional rights is always in the public interest.”
Legal Battle Not Over
The ruling does not resolve the lawsuit, but it strengthens TwinSpires’ ability to continue operating in Michigan while the case proceeds.
More broadly, the decision reinforces the IHA’s role as the controlling framework for online, interstate pari-mutuel wagering. It also limits states’ ability to unilaterally rewrite that balance through licensing requirements.
The ruling also comes as similar legal battles over state versus federal authority are ongoing, particularly in the context of prediction markets. The platforms, which offer event contracts under federal commodities law, have faced mounting pushback from state gaming regulators, who argue that sports event contracts amount to illegal wagering.
