Federal Court Delivers Split Ruling on USDA Horse Protection Reforms
Written by: Tommy Williams
email:tommywhc@aol.com
931-492-2825
WHC Publisher-Williams Media Entertainment
Federal Court Delivers Split Ruling on USDA Horse Protection Reforms
April 2 Implementation Looms for Key Provision
A U.S. District Court in Texas issued a mixed verdict Friday in the high-stakes legal battle over the USDA’s 2024 amendments to the Horse Protection Act (HPA), granting partial victories to both the Tennessee Walking Horse industry and federal regulators.
Core Rulings
- Equipment Ban Overturned:
Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk struck down the USDA’s blanket prohibition on action devices, pads, and substances, ruling the agency overstepped its statutory authority. The HPA allows regulation of equipment use to prevent soring—not outright bans. - Scar Rule Replacement Flawed:
The Digital Cervical Imaging System (DCIS), intended to replace the decades-old Scar Rule for detecting soring, was deemed procedurally deficient. The court found USDA failed to establish safeguards for handlers to contest DCIS findings, violating due process. - DQP Program Phase-Out Upheld:
The court greenlit the USDA’s elimination of the Designated Qualified Person (DQP) program, which let industry-affiliated inspectors enforce HPA standards. Judge Kacsmaryk ruled this reform aligns with Congress’ intent to prevent conflicts of interest.
Immediate Impact
- Equipment Use: Training and showing practices involving action devices (e.g., chains, weighted shoes) and lubricants may continue under existing HPA guidelines.
- Inspections: The DQP program will sunset on April 2, 2025, per last week’s USDA extension. Federal veterinarians and agents will assume full inspection duties.
- Legal Pathways: Plaintiffs retain the right to appeal the DQP ruling, while USDA must revise the DCIS process to include appeals and evidence challenges.
Stakeholder Reactions
- Industry Groups: Hailed the equipment ban reversal as a “victory for tradition,” but expressed concerns about federal inspection capacity post-DQP.
- Animal Welfare Advocates: Criticized the court for “prioritizing technicalities over horse welfare,” urging USDA to appeal the equipment ruling.
Next Steps
USDA faces a tight timeline to either:
- Revise the DCIS and penalty review processes to comply with due process requirements.
- Appeal the adverse rulings to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bottom Line: While the ruling preserves certain industry practices, it solidifies federal oversight of inspections—a seismic shift for the Tennessee Walking Horse world. All eyes now turn to USDA’s next move.
Updated 1/31/2025 6:15 PM EST
