No. 77-803
Argued: November 7, 1978Decided: June 25, 1979
Held:
-
- 1. Section 8022 does not violate the Due Process Clause by authorizing summary suspensions without a presuspension hearing. Although
- appellee has a property interest in his license under state law sufficient to invoke due process protections, and although the magnitude of a trainer’s interest in avoiding suspension is substantial, the State also has an important interest in assuring the integrity of racing carried on under its auspices. In these circumstances, the State is entitled to impose an interim suspension, pending a prompt judicial or administrative hearing that will definitely determine the issues, whenever it has satisfactorily established probable cause to believe that a horse has been drugged and that a trainer has been at least negligent in connection with the drugging. Here, the State adduced the assertion of its testing official as proof that appellee’s horse had been drugged, and, at the interim suspension stage, an expert’s affirmance would appear sufficiently reliable to satisfy constitutional requirements. As for appellee’s culpability, in light of the Board’s trainer’s responsibility rules, the inference, predicated on the fact of drugging, that appellee was at least negligent will be accepted as defensible, and the State will not be put to further presuspension proof that appellee had not complied with the applicable rules. Pp. 63-66.
- 2. However, appellee was not assured a sufficiently timely postsuspension hearing and 8022 was unconstitutionally applied in this respect. The statutory provision for an administrative hearing, neither on its face nor as applied, assured a prompt proceeding and prompt disposition of the outstanding issues between appellee and the State, it being as likely as not that appellee and others subject to relatively brief suspensions would have no opportunity to put the State to its proof until they have suffered the full penalty imposed. Once suspension has been imposed, the trainer’s interest in a speedy resolution of the controversy becomes paramount, and there is little or no state interest in an appreciable delay in going forward with a full hearing. P. 66.
- 3. The State’s prohibition of administrative stays pending a hearing in the harness racing context without a like prohibition in thoroughbred racing does not deny harness racing trainers equal protection of the laws. The legislative history of 8022 makes clear that it and other provisions applicable to harness racing resulted from a legislative conclusion that harness racing should be subject to strict regulation, and appellee has not demonstrated that the acute problems attending harness racing also plague thoroughbred racing and that both types of racing should be treated identically. Also, the procedural mechanism selected to mitigate the threats to the public interest arising in the harness racing context is rationally related to the achievement of that goal. Pp. 67-68.
436 F. Supp. 775, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. [443 U.S. 55, 57]
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which STEWART, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 68.
Robert S. Hammer, Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General.
Joseph A. Faraldo argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee. *
[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Dominic H. Frinzi and Joseph F. Asher for Harness Horsemen International, Inc.; by Philip P. Ardery for the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association; and by Roger D. Smith for the Jockeys’ Guild, Inc. O. Carlysle McCandless, Miles M. Tepper, Ira A. Finkelstein, and Ruth D. MacNaughton filed a brief for the New York Racing Association, Inc., as amicus curiae.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The New York State Racing and Wagering Board (Board) is empowered to license horse trainers and others participating in harness horse-race meets in New York. 1 The Board also issues regulations setting forth the standards of conduct that a horse trainer must satisfy to retain his license. 2 Among [443 U.S. 55, 58] other things, the rules issued by the Board forbid the drugging of horses within 48 hours of a race and make trainers responsible for the condition and soundness of their horses before, during, and after a race. 3 A trainer is forbidden to permit a horse in his custody to start a race “if he knows, or if by the exercise of reasonable care he might have known or have cause to believe” that a horse trained by him has been drugged. 4 [443 U.S. 55, 59] Every trainer is required to “guard or cause to be guarded each horse trained by him in such manner . . . as to prevent any person not employed by or connected with the owner or trainer from administering any drug . . .” 5 And when a postrace test, which must be administered to horses finishing first, second, or third, reveals the presence of drugs, it is to be presumed – subject to rebuttal – that the drug “was either administered by the trainer or resulted from his negligence in failing to adequately protect against such occurrence.” 6
On June 22, 1976, Be Alert, a harness race horse trained by appellee, John Barchi, finished second in a race at Monticello Raceway. Two days later, Barchi was advised by the Board steward that a postrace urinalysis had revealed a drug in Be Alert’s system. Barchi proclaimed his innocence, and two lie-detector tests supported his lack of knowledge of the drugging. On July 8, relying on the trainer’s responsibility rules and the evidentiary presumption arising thereunder, the steward suspended Barchi for 15 days, commencing July 10. 7 Under 8022 of the New York Unconsolidated [443 U.S. 55, 60] Laws, 8 a suspended licensee is entitled to a postsuspension hearing, but the section ordains that “[p]ending such hearing and final determination thereon, the action of [443 U.S. 55, 61] the [Board] in . . . suspending a license . . . shall remain in full force and effect.” The section specifies no time in which the hearing must be held, and it affords the Board as long as 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing in which to issue a final order adjudicating a case. Without resorting to the 8022 procedures, Barchi filed this suit in the United States District Court.
Barchi alleged that his trainer’s license was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and that 8022 was unconstitutional because it permitted his license to be suspended without a prior hearing to determine his culpability and because a summary suspension could not be stayed pending the administrative review provided by the statute. Barchi also challenged the rule permitting the Board to presume rebuttably from the drugging of a horse that its trainer was responsible. His claim was that “there is no rational connection between the fact proved, that the horse was illegally drugged, and the ultimate fact presumed that the trainer is guilty of the act or carelessly guarded against the act occurring,” App. 15a (complaint), it being impossible, Barchi alleged, for the trainer to guard the horse against all those who by stealth might gain [443 U.S. 55, 62] access to it. Barchi’s third claim was that, in prohibiting a stay of his suspension pending administrative review, 8022 denied him equal protection of the laws, since in the context of thoroughbred racing, in contrast to harness racing, suspensions can be stayed pending appeal. 9
The District Court upheld the evidentiary presumption on its face, concluding: “[T]he duty of a trainer to oversee his horses is sufficiently connected to the occurrence of tampering to support the presumption established by the trainer’s `insurer’ rules. The state’s definition of trainer responsibility is reasonably related to the interests involved and, given the rebuttable nature of the 4120.5 presumption, the high standard of accountability is not unconstitutional.” Barchi v. Sarafan, 436 F. Supp. 775, 784 (SDNY 1977). The District Court went on to hold, however, that 8022 of the New York law was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause since it permitted the State “to irreparably sanction a harness race horse trainer without a pre-suspension or a prompt post-suspension [443 U.S. 55, 63] hearing in violation of plaintiff’s right to due process.” App. to Juris. Statement 2a (order of judgment). 10 The court further concluded that the difference between the procedures applicable to harness racing and those applicable to thoroughbred racing was so unwarranted as to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal. 435 U.S. 921 (1978). In this Court, the appellants adhere to their fundamental position that, as a constitutional matter, Barchi was entitled to no more process than was available to him under 8022 either before or after the suspension was imposed and became effective. Barchi, on the other hand, continues to insist that his suspension could in no event become effective without a prior hearing to establish that his horse had been drugged and that he was culpable.
We agree with appellants that 8022 does not affront the Due Process Clause by authorizing summary suspensions without a presuspension hearing, and we reject Barchi’s contrary contention. In disagreement with appellants, however, [443 U.S. 55, 64] we conclude that Barchi was not assured a sufficiently timely postsuspension hearing and that 8022 was unconstitutionally applied in this respect.
It is conceded that, under New York law, Barchi’s license could have been suspended only upon a satisfactory showing that his horse had been drugged and that he was at least negligent in failing to prevent the drugging. As a threshold matter, therefore, it is clear that Barchi had a property interest in his license sufficient to invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause. 11 We do not agree with Barchi’s basic contention, however, that an evidentiary hearing was required prior to the effectuation of his suspension. Unquestionably, the magnitude of a trainer’s interest in avoiding suspension is substantial; but the State also has an important interest in assuring the integrity of the racing carried on under its auspices. In these circumstances, it seems to us that the State is entitled to impose an interim suspension, pending a prompt judicial or administrative hearing that would definitely determine the issues, whenever it has satisfactorily established probable cause to believe that a horse has been drugged and that a trainer has been at least negligent in connection with the drugging. Cf. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 -112 (1975); Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 , [443 U.S. 55, 65] 609 (1974); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542 (1971). In such circumstances, the State’s interest in preserving the integrity of the sport and in protecting the public from harm becomes most acute. At the same time, there is substantial assurance that the trainer’s interest is not being baselessly compromised.
Under this standard, Barchi received all the process that was due him prior to the suspension of his license. As proof that Barchi’s horse had been drugged, the State adduced the assertion of its testing official, who had purported to examine Barchi’s horse pursuant to prescribed testing procedures. To establish probable cause, the State need not postpone a suspension pending an adversary hearing to resolve questions of credibility and conflicts in the evidence. At the interim suspension stage, an expert’s affirmance, although untested and not beyond error, would appear sufficiently reliable to satisfy constitutional requirements.
As for Barchi’s culpability, the New York trainer’s responsibility rules, approved by the District Court, established a rebuttable presumption or inference, predicated on the fact of drugging, that Barchi was at least negligent. In light of the duties placed upon the trainer by the trainer’s responsibility rules, we accept this inference of culpability as defensible and would not put the State to further presuspension proof that Barchi had not complied with the applicable rules. Furthermore, although Barchi was not given a formal hearing prior to the suspension of his license, he was immediately notified of the alleged drugging, 16 days elapsed prior to the imposition of the suspension, and he was given more than one opportunity to present his side of the story to the State’s investigators. In fact, he stated his position in the course of taking two lie-detector examinations. He points to nothing in the record demonstrating convincingly that he was not negligent, and the State’s investigators apparently failed to unearth an explanation for the drugging that would completely exonerate [443 U.S. 55, 66] him. Even if the State’s presuspension procedures, then, were not adequate finally to resolve the issues fairly and accurately, they sufficed for the purposes of probable cause and interim suspension.
That the State’s presuspension procedures were satisfactory, however, still leaves unresolved how and when the adequacy of the grounds for suspension is ultimately to be determined. As the District Court found, the consequences to a trainer of even a temporary suspension can be severe; and we have held that the opportunity to be heard must be “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). Here, the provision for an administrative hearing, neither on its face nor as applied in this case, assured a prompt proceeding and prompt disposition of the outstanding issues between Barchi and the State. Indeed, insofar as the statutory requirements are concerned, it is as likely as not that Barchi and others subject to relatively brief suspensions would have no opportunity to put the State to its proof until they have suffered the full penalty imposed. Yet, it is possible that Barchi’s horse may not have been drugged and Barchi may not have been at fault at all. Once suspension has been imposed, the trainer’s interest in a speedy resolution of the controversy becomes paramount, it seems to us. We also discern little or no state interest, and the State has suggested none, in an appreciable delay in going forward with a full hearing. On the contrary, it would seem as much in the State’s interest as Barchi’s to have an early and reliable determination with respect to the integrity of those participating in state-supervised horse racing.
In these circumstances, it was necessary that Barchi be assured a prompt postsuspension hearing, one that would proceed and be concluded without appreciable delay. Because the statute as applied in this case was deficient in this respect, Barchi’s suspension was constitutionally infirm under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [443 U.S. 55, 67]
The question remains whether the State’s prohibition of administrative stays pending a hearing in the harness racing context without a like prohibition in thoroughbred racing denies harness racing trainers equal protection of the laws. The District Court acknowledged that the inquiry in this respect is “whether or not the classification is without a reasonable basis.” 436 F. Supp., at 783. Put another way, a statutory classification such as this should not be overturned “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979). In holding that 8022 violated the Equal Protection Clause, the District Court misapplied this standard. The legislative history of 8022 makes clear that the section and other provisions applicable to harness racing resulted from a legislative conclusion that harness racing should be subject to strict regulation, 12 and neither Barchi nor the District Court has demonstrated that the acute problems attending harness racing also plague the thoroughbred racing industry. Barchi has not shown that the two industries should be identically regulated in all respects; he has not convinced us that “the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be [443 U.S. 55, 68] true by the governmental decisionmaker.” Vance v. Bradley, supra, at 111. It was not the State’s burden to disprove by resort to “current empirical proof,” 440 U.S., at 110 , Barchi’s bare assertions that thoroughbred and harness racing should be treated identically.
It also seems clear to us that the procedural mechanism selected to mitigate the threats to the public interest arising in the harness racing context is rationally related to the achievement of that goal. The State could reasonably conclude that swift suspension of harness racing trainers was necessary to protect the public from fraud and to foster public confidence in the harness racing sport. Accordingly, we think the District Court erred in disapproving the difference in the procedural courses applicable to harness racing and thoroughbred racing.
We thus affirm the judgment of the District Court insofar as it ruled Barchi’s suspension unconstitutional for lack of assurance of a prompt postsuspension hearing. We reverse its judgment, however, to the extent that it declared 8022 unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
