HR-1675-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would restructure how inspections for horse soring — the practice of causing pain to a horse's legs or hooves to produce an exaggerated gait — are conducted at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. It would direct USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to create a new industry-affiliated oversight organization, governed by a board appointed by the walking horse industry, to license, train, and oversee inspectors at horse events. It would also require event managers to disqualify horses found to be sore through objective, science-based veterinary inspections, and would effectively replace a 2024 APHIS rule that had required inspectors to be designated directly by APHIS.
Who benefits
Tennessee Walking Horse and other gaited horse breed associations and event organizers, who would regain industry influence over inspector selection and oversight. Horse show participants and exhibitors who prefer industry-led governance. Horses that are sored, who would receive structured veterinary inspections using science-based protocols. Veterinarians and veterinary technicians who would be formally integrated into the inspection process. Rural communities and local economies that depend on horse show events and related tourism.
Who is hurt
Animal welfare advocates and organizations who argue that industry self-policing has historically failed to prevent soring and who prefer direct federal oversight. APHIS, which would lose direct authority to designate inspectors — authority a federal court upheld in 2025. Horses that may remain at risk if industry-governed inspectors are less rigorous than federally designated ones. Members of the public who attend horse events and may be exposed to animal cruelty if enforcement weakens. Taxpayers who funded the 2024 APHIS rulemaking process, which this bill would effectively supersede.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the bill improves on the 2024 APHIS rule by requiring objective, science-based veterinary protocols — a more rigorous and measurable standard than the prior system. They contend that an industry-affiliated organization with formal APHIS oversight and licensed, trained inspectors provides accountability while restoring appropriate industry expertise to the process, and that the 2025 court decision vacating portions of the APHIS rule demonstrates the prior regulatory approach was legally flawed and in need of a congressional fix.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that placing inspector oversight in the hands of a board appointed by the walking horse industry recreates the same conflict of interest that led Congress to pass the original Horse Protection Act — industry-controlled inspectors have a documented history of under-enforcement. They contend that the 2025 court ruling actually upheld the most critical part of the APHIS rule (APHIS-designated inspectors), and that this bill would strip away that judicially validated protection by returning control to the very industry with a financial stake in the outcome.
Constitutional context
The bill operates under Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has long supported federal regulation of animal welfare at commercial events crossing state lines. No active constitutional tension is implicated; the bill delegates rulemaking and organizational authority to APHIS within a well-established statutory framework (the Horse Protection Act), and post-Loper Bright, courts would independently assess whether APHIS's implementation of the new organization stays within the bill's statutory boundaries.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (APHIS/USDA) gains the administrative duty to establish and oversee the new industry organization, while Congress sets the structural requirements; the industry-appointed board operates under APHIS supervision, and federal courts retain authority to review APHIS actions under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Historical precedent
The original Horse Protection Act of 1970 similarly attempted to use industry-designated inspectors (Designated Qualified Persons), a system that the USDA and animal welfare groups repeatedly criticized for inadequate enforcement over five decades, ultimately prompting the 2024 APHIS rulemaking this bill would replace.