Industry Attorneys Challenge USDA on Horse Protection Act Enforcement; Urge Immediate Reforms
March 7, 2025
In a formal letter dated March 6, 2025, Patrick F. Philbin, legal counsel for industry plaintiffs, called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address alleged violations of due process and other legal concerns tied to enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA). With the 2025 Tennessee Walking Horse show season approaching, Philbin emphasized the need for urgent action to revise policies he claims infringe on the rights of industry participants.
Key Demands: Due Process and Pre-Deprivation Hearings
Central to the letter is a demand for enhanced due process protections, including pre-deprivation hearings before horses are disqualified from competitions. Philbin cited a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in the Northern District of Texas, which found the USDA’s existing post-deprivation appeals process inadequate. The letter argues that disqualifying a horse during pre-show inspections—and barring it from reappearing at multi-day events—inflicts irreversible harm on owners and trainers. “USDA must retract this policy immediately,” Philbin wrote, stressing that the current framework denies participants a fair opportunity to contest allegations.
Scar Rule Replacement: Clarity and Fair Notice Required
The attorney also urged the USDA to expedite a formal rulemaking process to replace the controversial “scar rule,” which prohibits visible scarring indicative of soring. A federal court previously deemed the agency’s proposed replacement rule “deficient” in providing clear guidelines for trainers and owners. Philbin echoed this critique, stating the lack of specificity leaves the industry in legal limbo and fails to meet constitutional standards for fair notice.
Post-Show Inflammation Policy Under Fire
Another contentious issue raised is the USDA’s post-show inflammation policy, which attributes swelling in horses’ limbs to intentional soring caused by riding. Philbin called the policy an overreach, arguing it “exceeds USDA’s statutory authority” under the HPA. The letter demands the agency rescind the policy, likening it to the disputed bans on action devices and pads that remain unresolved.
Implications for 2025 Show Season and Pending Litigation
With the 2025 show season set to begin under 2024 enforcement rules, Philbin warned that delays in addressing these issues could lead to further litigation. The letter also references Wright v. USDA, a pending federal case in Jackson, Tennessee, challenging the HPA’s scar rule implementation, due process gaps, and the inflammation policy. A ruling is expected later this year.
Conclusion: A Call for Swift Action
Philbin’s letter underscores the mounting tension between industry stakeholders and federal regulators. As legal battles intensify, the USDA faces mounting pressure to balance animal welfare commitments with constitutional safeguards for participants. The outcome could reshape HPA enforcement for years to come.
For ongoing coverage of this developing story, visit our News Archives or return to the News Home Page.
