crs_reports: R49325

Congressional Research Service reports with summaries, authors, and topic classifications.

Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API

This data as json

id title publish_date update_date status content_type authors topics summary pdf_url html_url
R49325 The Horse Protection Act: Background and Considerations for Congress 2026-08-31T04:00:00Z 2026-09-02T17:47:31Z Active Reports Eleni G. Bickell Animal Agriculture The Horse Protection Act (HPA; 15 U.S.C. §§1821-1831, P.L. 91-540, as amended) was enacted in 1970 to prohibit the exhibition, sale, auction, or transportation of horses that are sore. The statute defines a sore horse as one subjected to specified substances, devices, injuries, or practices that cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when the horse is walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. Soring has been used primarily in the training of certain Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses to produce an exaggerated high-stepping gait known as the “big lick.” Congress amended the HPA in 1976 (P.L. 94-360) to expand federal enforcement authority, establish civil penalties and disqualification provisions, and authorize horse show and exhibition management to appoint qualified inspectors meeting U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-established standards. This framework led to an inspection system relying on industry-associated Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs), while retaining federal oversight and enforcement authority for USDA. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reported higher HPA noncompliance rates in inspections conducted by APHIS personnel than in inspections conducted solely by DQPs during FY2017-FY2022, particularly among performance horses. USDA cited these differences, together with concerns regarding inspector independence and enforcement consistency, in adopting regulations intended to replace DQPs with APHIS-authorized Horse Protection Inspectors (HPIs). In May 2024, USDA issued the first comprehensive revision of the HPA regulations since 1976. The final rule sought to replace DQPs with HPIs, revise inspection procedures, prohibit certain equipment and substances associated with soring, replace the existing “scar rule” with a new Dermatologic Conditions Indicative of Soring (DCIS) provision, and modify administrative review procedures. Litigation changed the status of the 2024 final rule. In January 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated provisions concerning certain categorical prohibitions on pads, action devices, and substances; the DCIS provision; and pre- and post-deprivation review procedures. The court upheld USDA’s authority to replace the DQP system with APHIS-authorized HPIs. USDA subsequently postponed implementation of the non-vacated provisions until December 31, 2026. For the 2026 show season, APHIS has stated that the regulations in effect before the 2024 final rule generally remain applicable. APHIS will not enforce the scar rule or the “no show back” policy during the 2026 season and has stated that it will not refer horses to DQPs or notify event management, on the basis of APHIS determinations, that horses are sore or otherwise noncompliant until APHIS updates its inspection process to provide horse custodians an opportunity to appeal APHIS inspection findings. These limitations concern APHIS’s communication of inspection findings for purposes of event-level action and do not affect its separate federal authority to investigate alleged violations and pursue federal administrative or criminal enforcement. As currently scheduled, beginning December 31, 2026, routine inspections may be conducted by APHIS Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs) or APHIS-authorized HPIs. HPIs would be third-party inspectors rather than federal employees and would be screened, trained, and authorized by APHIS and appointed and paid by event management. APHIS has paused HPI training while it reevaluates the training curriculum. The transition may raise questions about the availability and geographic distribution of HPIs when DQPs cease to be authorized. Congress may continue oversight of USDA implementation of the HPA or consider legislative options concerning federal inspection and enforcement authority, penalties, prohibited practices, inspection funding, inspector qualifications and conflicts of interest, reporting and transparency, or horse transportation and other welfare issues. Such actions could affect enforcement consistency, USDA administrative responsibilities, compliance costs, federal oversight, and the role of third-party inspectors. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R49325/R49325.2.pdf https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R49325.html

Links from other tables