A panel of board members of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority has issued a ruling requiring Churchill Downs Inc. to pay approximately $5.3 million in unpaid dues and interest within the next 10 days or lose its ability to send signals from its racetracks to out-of-state locations. The ruling can be appealed by Churchill Downs Inc. to the full board within 10 days, according to HISA. A Churchill Downs spokesperson said shortly after the ruling was released that the company would have no comment on the decision. The ruling was issued approximately six-and-a-half weeks prior to the May 2 Kentucky Derby, a race that drew $222.6 million in bets last year, mostly from out-of-state sites. The Derby card had record handle of $336.6 million last year, also mostly from the simulcast market. HISA filed a complaint against four tracks owned by Churchill Downs Inc. in February, alleging that the company had failed to submit dues payments to the authority for the entirety of 2025. The affected tracks included Churchill in Louisville, Turfway Park in Northern Kentucky, Ellis Park in Western Kentucky, and Presque Isle Downs in Western Pennsylvania. :: DRF Road to the Derby Package Available Now! Save 37% on key handicapping essentials through Kentucky Derby day. A dispute arose between Churchill and HISA late in 2024 when the company filed a legal challenge to the method HISA used to determine fee assessments. That challenge was initially joined by the New York Racing Association, but NYRA reached a settlement with HISA shortly after the suit was filed and withdrew. HISA’s enabling legislation contained provisions allowing the authority to revoke a track’s simulcast privileges for violations of its regulations. Churchill has not disputed that it owes HISA fees, but it has said in previous legal filings that the court should rule on its lawsuit before it resumes paying the fees. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, which is based in Louisville. The case is complicated by the fact that HISA changed its fee methodology starting in 2026, and the new methodology aligns with the formula Churchill has advocated for in its lawsuit. In its response to the HISA complaint, CDI argued that HISA did not have the authority to seek fees under the new formula for 2025, the year in which the track did not respond to any of the monthly invoices sent by HISA. But the panel ruled that the argument was moot because the fees that were being sought by HISA from three of the tracks – Turfway, Ellis, and Presque Isle – in the complaint were lower than the amounts that would be assessed under the new formula.  In addition, the panel ruled that HISA was only seeking a “partial payment” of the fees charged to Churchill Downs Inc. as a “benefit in light of its pending suit.” The complaint states that Churchill is in arrears on $6.33 million in fees under the old methodology, but the complaint is only seeking $2.41 million – or the amount that would be owed under the new methodology when accounting for all four tracks.  :: KENTUCKY DERBY 2026: Top contenders, point standings, prep schedule, news, and more “The amount sought in this proceeding is the ‘absolute minimum amount that CDI would owe’ under the original methodology rule or the CDI formula,” the panel wrote. “There is nothing in the rules prohibiting the Authority from seeking partial payment now and reserving the right to seek the remainder at a later date.”  The panel was comprised of Joe DeFrancis, who formerly owned and operated Laurel Park and Pimlico Racecourse in Maryland; Bill Thomason, a former chief executive of Keeneland Association; and Terri Mazur, a trial lawyer who specializes in securities and financial services law.  The panel also rejected arguments made by CDI in its response to the complaint that HISA’s enabling legislation violated certain Constitutional protections and the due-process clause, contending that the arguments were not germane to the proceedings.  Ironically, the arguments fell along the same lines as those filed by other racing constituencies against HISA in a handful of suits that Churchill has not joined. The majority of those decisions have been in HISA’s favor, though one court has yet to respond to a directive by the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision under a ruling issued last year in a similar case that favored HISA’s defense.  “Challenges to the legality or validity of the Authority’s enforcement framework itself – whether the challenge is under the [enabling legislation], the Constitution, or the private non-delegation doctrine – are not appropriate arguments for the board panel and fall outside the scope of this proceeding,” the panel wrote. :: Want to learn more about handicapping and wagering? Check out DRF's Handicapping 101 and Wagering 101 pages.