In The Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association v. United States Department of Agriculture (2025), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas addressed the constitutionality of the USDA’s 2024 Rule, aimed at enhancing enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA), which seeks to eradicate the cruel practice of “soring” in horses.

Background: The plaintiffs, including the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association, challenged several provisions of the USDA’s 2024 Rule, arguing that the agency exceeded its statutory authority and violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Key Issues and Rulings:

1. Prohibition of Action Devices and Pads: The court ruled that the USDA overstepped its authority by imposing a blanket ban on action devices and pads, as there was insufficient evidence that these items inherently cause soring.
2. Ban on Substances Applied Above the Hoof: The court found that banning all such substances, including innocuous items like lubricants, exceeded the USDA’s statutory authority since there was no conclusive evidence linking these substances directly to soring.
3. Dermatologic Conditions Indicative of Soring (DCIS) Provision: This provision, intended to replace the outdated “Scar Rule,” was invalidated for failing to provide adequate due process. The court noted that it was too vague, leaving horse owners and trainers without clear standards.
4. Pre- and Post-Deprivation Review Mechanisms: The court held that the USDA’s procedures for challenging disqualification decisions lacked sufficient due process protections, particularly because they did not offer meaningful pre-deprivation review.
5. Designated Qualified Persons (DQP) Program: Unlike the other provisions, the court upheld the USDA’s changes to the DQP program, which replaced third-party inspectors with USDA-authorized inspectors. The court found this did not exceed statutory authority, nor was it arbitrary or capricious.

Conclusion: The court granted partial summary judgment to both parties. It vacated the USDA’s prohibitions on action devices, pads, and substances, as well as the DCIS provision and the deficient review procedures. However, it upheld the USDA’s modifications to the DQP program, allowing the agency’s new inspection framework to remain in place.

This case highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between regulatory enforcement and ensuring agencies do not exceed their legal boundaries or infringe upon constitutional rights.  

On January 24, 2025, USDA APHIS temporarily postponed the implement of its final rule to amend the HPA regulations for 60 days to April 2, 2025.  As of today’s blog, USDA APHIS has made no update to its website to reference this latest court ruling.  Click here to read the entire opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/2:2024cv00143/391649/57/

This blog post is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.