Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service exceeded its authority when amending the Horse Protection Act. Image: HSUS

A federal court recently found the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) exceeded its authority when amending the Horse Protection Act (HPA). Yet, some changes go beyond cracking down on soring.

Judge Matthew J Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas tossed four of the five provisions USDA-APHIS implemented following a lawsuit filed by the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association (TWHCNA).

HPA Intent & Definitions

Passed into law 55 years ago, the HPA “prohibits the showing, sale, auction, exhibition, or transport of sored horses,” according to USDA-APHIS. “Congress found and declared that the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane, and that sored horses, when shown or exhibited, compete unfairly with horses that are not sore.” The HPA describes a “sore” horse when any of the following occurs.

“(A) An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse.

“(B) Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse.

“(C) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse.

“(D) Any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, except that such term does not include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State in which such treatment was given.”

Action devices are defined as “any boot, collar, chain, roller, beads, bangles, or other devices, which encircles or is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg or slide up and down the leg so as to cause friction, or which can strike the hoof, coronet band or fetlock joint.”

Soring produces a high-stepping gait favored among Tennessee Walking Horses and other related breeds. Although most violations have been recorded in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, the HPA applies to all horses.

“Have we achieved 100% compliance with the Horse Protection Act?” Jeffrey Howard, publisher of The Walking Horse Report, wrote May 16, 2024, after the TWHCNA filed suit. “We have to be honest and acknowledge that we have not; however, our compliance rates are strong and the super majority of our horses are compliant with the HPA.”

USDA veterinarians inspected 2,740 horses in 2023 with 525 found to be sore — an 81% compliance rate. Another 96 were detected because of other unspecified noncompliances, a compliance rate of 96%. The horses examined, however, are not solely Tennessee Walking Horses. All entries are mixed breeds and disciplines.

Unlawful Regulations

The four unlawful provisions are the prohibition of action devices and pads, the prohibition of substances, the dermatologic conditions indicative of soring (DCIS) — which replaces the scar rule — and the pre- and post-deprivation review of inspector decisions. The court upheld eliminating the designated qualified persons (DQP) program.

Action Devices & Pads. While the existing regulation prohibits pads or other devices on yearling horses that elevate or change the angle more than 1 inch at the heel, the court found it unlawful that the new rule eliminated all pads unless applied for therapeutic purposes.

“Altering the angulation of a horse’s feet and legs can cause painful lameness, soreness, and inflammation by transferring concussive impact and weight-bearing pressures to joints and other parts of the horse not normally subjected to these forces,” the rule states. “Elevating the foot using stacked hoof pads, or ‘performance packages,’ can also cause an increase in tension in the tendons leading to inflammation, as can extra weight on the horse’s foot.”

Citing a 1982 Auburn University study, the rule also makes the case that raising heels with only pads results in swollen flexor tendons and inflammation. The packages limit the ability to detect pressure soring since the solar surface of the foot is covered. Pressure soring involves the use of items such as bolts, screws, hoof packing and other materials to create force on the sole to influence the horse’s gait.

In his ruling, Kacsmaryk notes USDA-APHIS doesn’t dispute that action devices and pads do not cause soring when used appropriately. Two studies by Auburn University and the National Academy of Sciences are cited by USDA-APHIS in the lawsuit confirm the findings.

“The current Horse Protection Amendments align with these findings, already prohibiting action devices weighing more than [6] ounces each and pads that elevate or change the angle of a horse’s hoof by more than [1] inch,” Kacsmaryk writes. “These current restrictions, when properly adhered to, ensure that no soring is caused by action devices or pads. Banning all action devices and pads only punishes owners and trainers already in compliance with existing regulations and fails to alter the behavior of incorrigible offenders.”

Substances. The rule also bans the use of all substances on the distal limbs above the hoof without the written approval of a veterinarian. Prohibited substances include shampoo, conditioner, polishes, insect repellants and lubricants.

USDA-APHIS argues that substances “can mask efforts to detect soring through inspections.” Kacsmaryk rejected the government’s position.

“A blanket ban is not the solution,” he writes. “Further, the Court cannot locate in Defendants’ briefing any particular, documented instance of a lubricant being used to mask soring. … Although it may be true that ‘a strong association remains between the application of substances and soring,’ Defendants fail to properly substantiate their conclusion that such association includes lubricants.”

Dermatologic Conditions Indicative of Soring (DCIS). The DCIS provision replaces the Scar Rule, which requires the disqualification of a horse if it exhibits “bilateral granulomas, other bilateral pathological evidence of inflammation, and, other bilateral evidence of abuse indicative of soring including, but not limited to, excessive loss of hair.”

While the intension of DCIS is to “help inspectors determine whether a horse is sore and clarify the process for reaching that conclusion,” TWHCNA claims it violates due process of horse owners, trainers and show management.

“It does not give owners and trainers fair notice of the skin conditions that will result in a horse being deemed sore and lacks any limiting criteria that distinguish a sore horse from a healthy horse,” TWHCNA argues in the lawsuit.

The vague nature of USDA-APHIS’ argument for DCIS, as well as its reliance on subjective judgment led Kacsmaryk to his decision.

“The text of the DCIS provision fails to list any specific criteria that must be present for a horse to be deemed sore; instead, the rule provides only ‘examples of dermatologic conditions that will be evaluated in determining whether a horse is sore,’ including but not limited to ‘irritation, moisture, edema, swelling, redness, epidermal thickening, and loss of hair (patchy or diffuse),’” he writes. “The DCIS provision's incorporation of the statutory definition of ‘sore’ has little practical effect, as this definition merely describes the condition of being sore rather than defining what criteria is present to determine the presence of the condition. Due process requires more than what the eye of each individual beholder deems sufficient.”

Pre- & Post-Deprivation Review of Inspector Decisions. The court ruled that USDA-APHIS’ amendment does not adequately provide a pre-deprivation review.

“Though those responsible for a horse may appeal a disqualification decision directly to the Administrator of APHIS, this process is deficient in its ability to make the horse trainer or owner whole,” Kacsmaryk writes. “Winning an appeal and overturning a disqualification still forecloses the ability of a horse to compete, as well as any ability for owners or trainers to claim prize money and notoriety within the industry. This attempt at post-deprivation review remains unsatisfactory.”

It’s unclear whether the USDA under the Trump administration will appeal the ruling to a higher court.

All Breeds & Shows

Although leading equine organizations such as the American Horse Council (AHC) and the U.S. Equine Federation support the rule, they requested a 60-day postponement because the “agency is not ready to implement and/or enforce the revised regulation in a fair and consistent manner.”

While the AHC called for the postponement, it encouraged USDA-APHIS to continue targeting other breeds and disciplines.

“[W]e recommend the USDA-APHIS … [p]ostpone enforcement of the regulation EXCEPT for the provisions banning devices on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses,” according to its request (the bold and capitalization is AHC’s emphasis). “These breeds, which historically have been subjected to soring, are the focal point of the regulation. The prohibited action devices, artificial extension of toe length, pads, wedges, and lubricants on the limbs or feet of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses (with exceptions for approved therapeutic uses of artificial extension of toe length, pads, wedges, and substances) have direct consequences for the health and welfare of these breeds.”

Upon taking office on Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order asking federal agencies to consider a 60-day postponement of rules published in the Federal Register but haven’t been implemented. APHIS announced Jan. 24 that it “temporarily postponed our final rule to amend the HPA regulations for 60 days from February 1 to April 2, 2025.”

Although enforcement historically targets the elimination of soring in Tennessee Walkers, Spotted Saddle Horses and racking horses, the HPA emphasizes that it applies to all breeds and disciplines. In fact, the revised federal regulations are broadened to focus on all shows, exhibitions, sales and auctions. These rules remain in place as they are outside the scope of TWHCNA’s lawsuit.

The new rule, which was published in the Federal Register in May 2024, defines a show as a public display of any equines in competition except where speed is the prime factor, rodeo events, parades, or trail rides. This includes donkeys, mules, state fairs and 4-H shows.

Agriculture commissioners from 11 states — Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and West Virginia — are asking the USDA to withdraw the final rule.

“If implemented, the new HPA rule would devastate the equine community, especially breeders, trainers, and horse owners nationwide,” according to a letter to the USDA from 11 states calling for the withdrawal of the final rule. “Excessive regulation, unwarranted government expansion, unnecessary expenses, and burdens will negatively impact the industry and the economy.”

The states have a kindred spirit in Rep. James Comer, who called on the Trump administration to abolish the rule before he took office. The Kentucky Republican chairs the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

“The [c]ommittee urgently calls for the incoming Trump [a]dministration to take immediate steps upon assuming office toward abolition of the new Horse Protection Amendments rule, which is set to take effect on February 1, 2025,” according to the letter, which also says the USDA’s enforcement actions “demonstrate a troubling disregard for procedural fairness and stakeholder engagement.”

Expanding Soring

Others are convinced the breeds and disciplines historically involved in soring are no longer the only targets.

“[A]nimal extremists have not only persisted in their attacks of the [Tennessee Walking Horse] industry, but also in seeking to expand the definition of ‘soring’ to encompass as much of the horse industry as possible,” says David Duquette, president of the Western Justice Legislative Fund, a nonprofit organization that aims to preserve and protect the Western lifestyle, livelihoods and events. “The recent revisions to the law are the result. The lead USDA veterinarian, Dr. Aaron Rhyner, even went so far as to say that he could see how just riding a horse could be considered … a type of soring.”

The TWHCNA lawsuit also sought to overturn the elimination of the Designated Qualified Persons (DQP) Program, which is a group of USDA-trained lay inspectors. However, this was the only provision the court did not overturn. USDA-APHIS is the only agency responsible for training and employing inspectors. The regulations also require the inspectors must be veterinarians or veterinary technicians.

While there are about 50 Tennessee Walking Horse events annually, the new expanded requirements of extending inspections to all non-speed events could result in shortages.

“While the USDA has exponentially and arbitrarily expanded the scope of the HPA, they have at the same time drastically reduced the number of possible inspectors by eliminating the use of third-party designated qualified persons (DQPs) that have historically been utilized,” Duquette says. “This has very effectively and even deliberately created a shortage of qualified inspectors.”

The 60-day postponement concludes April 2, 2025. The USDA-APHIS amendments are scheduled to take effect at that time.