Agency actions follow court rulings and ongoing regulatory review

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Humane World for Animals and affiliated plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), challenging recent agency actions related to enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA). 

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, takes issue with USDA’s decision to pause or modify certain enforcement practices, including application of the “Scar Rule,” the “No Showback Rule,” and aspects of the disqualification process, as well as delays tied to implementation of the 2024 Horse Protection rule which included the removal of Horse Industry Organizations.

Plaintiffs argue those actions weaken the enforcement of the HPA and are inconsistent with the agency’s statutory obligations. 

However, USDA’s recent decisions come amid ongoing litigation and in response to federal court rulings—most notably a 2025 decision from a Texas federal court that struck down portions of the 2024 Final Rule while allowing other provisions to remain in place. That ruling, along with a separate preliminary injunction, required the agency to reassess how certain rules are applied.

In the wake of those decisions, USDA has taken steps to align enforcement with the court’s guidance, including temporarily suspending certain provisions and reviewing inspection procedures. The agency has also indicated a need to refine its process, including consideration of additional due process safeguards such as clearer appeal opportunities for owners and trainers.

According to the complaint, Humane World is seeking to have the court set aside USDA’s actions and require full reinstatement of prior enforcement measures and implementation of the 2024 rule. 

The Horse Protection Act, enacted in 1970, prohibits the exhibition or sale of sore horses and places enforcement authority with USDA. The agency’s approach to enforcement has evolved over time, often shaped by court decisions, regulatory changes and ongoing debate within the industry.

This latest lawsuit represents another step in that continuing legal and regulatory process.