Whether you are a regular at Saratoga or become an instant expert on horse racing in the days leading up to the Kentucky Derby, you have no doubt wondered how owners come up with their horses’ names. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit touches on this issue. The decision is mostly about procedural issues but the interesting part to me is the part about naming the horse.
In Jamgotchian v. Ferraro, plaintiffs owned a horse that they named Malpractice Meuser. They wanted to race the horse at California’s Los Alamitos Race Course. California, like other states, requires all thoroughbreds racing in the State to be registered with the Jockey Club of New York. The Jockey Club is a private organization that, among other things, promulgates the “Principal Rules and Requirements of the American Studbook” and sets the rules for naming horses.
In Jamgotchian, the Jockey Club refused to register Malpractice Meuser because the name violated the Principal Rules and Requirements. Specifically, the Jockey Club prohibits horse names that are “designed to harass, humiliate, or disparage a specific individual.” As the Ninth Circuit observed: “The Jockey Club believed that Malpractice Meuser was named for Michael D. Meuser, a Kentucky lawyer specializing in equine law.” So the Jockey Club instructed plaintiffs to register the horse under a different name.
Read more: A horse is a horse, of course of course . . . that is, of course, unless the horse also raises First Amendment issuesPlaintiffs chose not to take the Jockey Club’s advise and instead sought to enter Malpractice Meuser in a race at Los Alamitos. The track’s stewards refused to allow plaintiffs to enter the horse because it was not registered with the Jockey Club in violation of California law.
Plaintiffs appealed the steward’s decision to the California Horse Racing Board (“CHRB”). They argued that the steward’s “enforcement of the Jockey Club registration requirement . . . resulted in impermissible viewpoint discrimination, contrary to the First Amendment.”
The CHRB affirmed the steward’s decision and “offered commentary on why it believed that [plaintiffs’] constitutional claims were not colorable,” but ultimately concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to decide plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. The CHRB “explained that, because the California Constitution bars state agencies from declaring a statute unconstitutional or refusing to enforce a statute on constitution grounds unless an appellate court has made that determination. [plaintiffs were] required to go to court for resolution of [their] constitutional claims.”
Plaintiffs went to court, but not to the California appellate courts as the CHRB appeared to anticipate. Instead, they went to the federal courts and filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against the individual stewards and CHRB members. (This is where the case takes a turn towards the procedural.) The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiffs were precluded from raising their constitutional issues in federal court because they had not challenged the CHRB decision in state court.
Plaintiffs appealed and the Ninth Circuit reversed. You will have to read the opinion for the heady procedural discussion. But suffice to say, plaintiffs will get a chance to raise their constitutional claims on the merits. Whether they succeed or not is an open question, but Malpractice Meuser will get his day in court!
A few other interesting facts.
First, in case you were wondering, First Amendment was registered as a thoroughbred with the Jockey Club in 2012 and Malpractice M.D. and Malpractice Mike are also registered.
Second, if you are looking to name your own horse, the Principal Rules and Requirements prohibit the following:
1. Names consisting of more than 18 letters (spaces and punctuation marks count as letters);
2. Names consisting entirely of initials, such as C.O.D., F.O.B., etc.;
3. Names ending in “filly,” “colt,” “stud,” “mare,” “stallion,” or any similar horse-related term;
4. Names consisting entirely of numbers. Numbers above 30 (thirty) may be used if they are spelled out;
5. Names ending with a numerical designation such as “2nd” or “3rd,” whether or not such a designation is spelled out;
6. Names of living persons unless written permission to use their name is on file with The Jockey Club;
7. Names of persons no longer living unless approval is granted by The Jockey Club based upon a satisfactory written explanation submitted to the registrar;
8. Names of racetracks or graded stakes races;
9. Names that in the judgment and discretion of the registrar:
a. Have clear commercial, artistic or creative significance;
b. Contain profanity or suggest a vulgar or obscene meaning;
c. Are considered in poor taste;
d. Are likely to be offensive or threatening based upon factors including, but not limited to, color, creed, disability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, politics, or sexual orientation;
e. Appear to be designed to harass, humiliate, or disparage a specific individual, group, or entity;
f. Are inflammatory or are likely to invoke controversy;
g. Are demeaning to the horse or Thoroughbred breeding or racing.
10. Names that are currently active either in racing or breeding (see Rule6(E));
11. Names of winners in the past 25 years of grade one stakes races;
12. Permanent names. The list of criteria to establish a permanent name is as follows:
a. Horses in racing’s Hall of Fame;
b. Horses that have been voted Horse of the Year;
c. Horses that have won an Eclipse Award;
d. Horses that have won a Sovereign Award (Canadian champions);
e. Annual leading Sire and Broodmare Sire by progeny earnings;
f. Cumulative money winners of $2 million or more;
g. Horses that have won the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont Stakes, The Jockey Club Gold Cup, the Breeders’ Cup Classic, or the Breeders’ Cup Turf; and
h. Horses included in the International List of Protected Names.
13. Names similar in spelling or pronunciation to the classes of names listed in Rule 6(F) 6 – 12 above;
14. Names of horses previously recorded in The American Stud Book by the same sire or out of the same dam as the foal for which the attempt is made; and
15. Names of horses appearing within the first five generations of the pedigree of the foal for which the attempt is made.
Pete's Take 