An occupational license does not negate your constitutional rights
Horsepeople, like many others in our society, may still think of a government-issued license as nothing more than a privilege — a permission slip controlled entirely by the rules and regulations under which it is granted. However, once that license is issued, and the licensee has spent years building a livelihood, reputation and body of experience around it, the license becomes something far more substantial. It develops real value — both economic and personal — and that value should not be impaired, reduced or taken away.
So, when the government moves to suspend or revoke that license — even for a limited time — it is not simply withdrawing a privilege. It is interfering with a property interest that has been built and relied upon over a lifetime.
Nearly 50 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that once licenses are issued, specifically licenses in harness racing, their continued possession becomes essential to a person’s ability to earn a living. The suspension or revocation of such a license is, therefore, action by the state that affects significant and protected interests of the licensee.
For that reason, the Court held that no state may deprive a person of that interest without the procedural due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The principle is straightforward: Once a license is issued for the purpose of pursuing one’s livelihood, it is no longer merely a privilege. It is a constitutionally protected property right, entitled to the full measure of protection the Fourteenth Amendment provides.
Prior to that harness ruling, the Supreme Court in 1967 ruled that a New York lawyer who had been subpoenaed to produce records and testify in an investigation of alleged professional misconduct could not be disbarred for refusing to testify on the ground that he had a constitutional right to remain silent. The Court explained that a person must remain free to decide whether to speak “in the unfettered exercise of his own will” and must “suffer no penalty for such silence.”
That decision stood in direct conflict with a state rule requiring lawyers “to cooperate fully” in disciplinary investigations. The Court was not rejecting cooperation as a general matter; rather, it objected to the threat or action of disbarment as a coercive weapon to force a lawyer to surrender his constitutional rights. In the Court’s view, the state’s rule was an impermissibly powerful instrument of compulsion because it used the machinery of the force of law to extract evidence that could later be used against the individual. The lawyer was ultimately reinstated.
While, in its decision, the Court referenced the words to “convict him,” those words should not be understood as limiting the right to remain silent to criminal cases alone. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the right to remain silent may be asserted in any proceeding — criminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory — whenever statements or testimony could later be used to a person’s detriment.
These same constitutional protections that apply to other licenses also apply to racing licenses. Trainers, drivers and jockeys hold the same category of constitutionally protected property interest in their occupational licenses as other licensed professionals. That protection does not disappear simply because the state threatens to suspend or revoke a racing license unless the licensee supplies evidence that may later be used to justify that very sought-after suspension or revocation.
There is, however, an important caution. Even when you believe you have done nothing wrong and fully intend to cooperate, prudence is essential. Words can be misunderstood, taken out of context, or twisted into support for an accusation based on suspicion that otherwise lacks adequate proof. A statement made in haste or in an effort to be cooperative can become the very evidence used to build a case against you.
I recall the story of a particularly shrewd jockey who was brought before investigators and told, “We know what you did, so why don’t you tell us what you did and who else was involved, then take your tack and go back where you came from.” His answer was simple: “If you know what I did, you don’t need me to tell you.” What followed was an effort to push him out of the sport and then an unsuccessful attempt to secure his criminal indictment. Both efforts failed. He later recovered monetary damages after false public statements continued to portray him as guilty despite his complete vindication. Had he spoken, there is very little reason to doubt that his own words would have been used against him to guarantee the final outcome.
None of this is to say that limited cooperation is never appropriate. Rather, the choice whether to cooperate should always be made carefully and with a full understanding of your constitutional rights. Remember that your racing license is not merely a privilege; it is a constitutionally protected property right. Before giving up your right not to speak or cooperate, think carefully about whether you should assist those who have already turned their attention toward you.
There is one final caution. The constitutional protections discussed here generally apply to states and state agencies, not to private entities. That distinction can become complicated, however, because courts have long recognized limits on the improper delegation of governmental licensing authority to private organizations. Most states also recognize that they may not deny a license solely because an individual is not a member of a private association.
A state may choose to give reciprocity to a disciplinary ruling issued by a private organization. But if the foundation for that ruling is a person’s refusal to cooperate in violation of constitutional principles the state is obligated to defer to, the state may ultimately be required to reconsider whether it can rely on that ruling at all.
In addition, private entities can sometimes become so closely connected to governmental enforcement that they may be treated as state actors deemed subject to those same constitutional constraints, and they, too, may be bound by the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Enforcement through the vehicle of a private entity’s actions surely concerns the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision involving HISA. In sum, while government can do what it chooses to do, you have choices as well, and you should consider your choices wisely.
Joe Faraldo
The views contained in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or views of the USTA.
This column appears in the August 2026 issue of Hoof Beats, the official magazine of the USTA. To learn more, or to become a subscriber to harness racing’s premier monthly publication, click here.