There are five horse racing tracks in Illinois that are in no way tied to the casino industry, meaning they are in “pure” competition.

Further, the Act found that the decrease in wagering had had a negative effect on the purses at the tracks, as well as on the state's breeding industry, which could be remedied by requiring that the riverboat casinos contribute a portion of their revenues to the competition.

The Illinois Racing Board would monitor how the funds are distributed, but not how the tracks actually spend the money.

The casinos argued that a taking has occurred because the fees exacted by the Act primarily benefited private parties, rather than the public good.

Their argument was that the Act did not violate the clause because they merely have to articulate a justification for a classification of the taxation system.

The Supreme Court of Illinois had “long recognized that a taxpayer’s ability to absorb the costs of taxation is a legitimate basis for classification.” Thus, the Act did not violate the uniformity clause.

The public purpose put forth by the State is the attempt to maintain the viability of horse racing in Illinois.

Horse racing not only provides revenue for the State and a legal outlet for gamblers, but it is also creates many jobs to keep Illinoisans employed.

The casinos presented no evidence that it was arbitrary or oppressive and thus have not met their burden of clearly demonstrating a violation of the takings clause.

Rather, this was one factor to be considered when determining reasonableness, and thus there was no support for the casinos’ claim that the Act violates the uniformity clause unless it was designed to remedy a special burden on the state.

Lastly, the court found that a takings analysis would not be appropriate in any case because the “thing” taken was not physical or intellectual property, rather it was money.

In Northern Illinois Home Builders Ass’n v. County of Du Page,[4] cited by the casinos, the Supreme Court of Illinois applied a takings analysis to fees levied on new home builders was inextricably tied to real property.

Thus, the money exacted through the tax was not intertwined to real property and nothing physical was taking within the meaning of the federal Constitution.

Several amici curiae briefs have been filed with the court: the Cato Institute; the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; the National Taxpayers Union; the Mountain States Legal Foundation; the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC); the Illinois Alliance for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform; and a brief written by six law professors.