HR-1684-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
What it does
The PAST Act of 2025 would expand federal prohibitions on "soring" — the use of painful substances or devices on horses' legs and hooves to produce exaggerated gaits at shows and competitions. It would ban specific action devices (such as nonprotective boots) on certain horse breeds, transfer inspector appointment authority from horse show organizers to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and require APHIS to license, train, and oversee all soring inspectors. The bill would also increase penalties for violations and allow APHIS to permanently bar repeat violators (three or more offenses) from participating in horse events.
Who benefits
Horses subjected to soring practices, which cause pain, inflammation, and lameness. Animal welfare organizations that have long advocated for stronger enforcement of the Horse Protection Act. Equine veterinarians who may gain a larger role in licensed inspection. Horse show attendees and the general public who oppose animal cruelty. Competitors who already comply with anti-soring rules and are disadvantaged by those who do not. APHIS, which would gain expanded regulatory authority and oversight capacity.
Who is hurt
Trainers, owners, and handlers who currently use action devices or other soring-adjacent practices that would be newly prohibited. Horse show organizers and breed associations — particularly those in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry — who would lose control over inspector selection and face stricter oversight. Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs), the industry-appointed inspectors who would be replaced by APHIS-licensed inspectors, potentially losing income and influence. Participants who face permanent disqualification after a third violation, even if prior violations were minor.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current system of industry-appointed inspectors has a fundamental conflict of interest — inspectors are selected by the very organizations they are supposed to police — and that this structural flaw has allowed soring to persist for decades despite the Horse Protection Act's passage in 1970. They contend that a 2024 APHIS rule attempted to fix this, but a court vacated key provisions because the agency lacked sufficient statutory authority, making congressional action the only durable solution. Supporters point to documented evidence of ongoing soring violations as proof that self-regulation has failed and that independent, federally licensed inspectors are necessary to ensure meaningful enforcement.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill imposes a sweeping federal takeover of a niche equestrian industry that has already developed its own inspection infrastructure, and that permanently disqualifying participants after a third violation — regardless of severity — is disproportionately punitive. They contend that the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, which is concentrated in a small number of states, would bear the economic brunt of these rules, threatening livelihoods, local economies, and a culturally significant tradition. Opponents may also argue that the bill's broad device bans go beyond what is necessary to prevent animal cruelty and could prohibit equipment with legitimate, non-harmful uses, echoing the court's 2025 finding that APHIS exceeded its statutory authority when it attempted similar restrictions by regulation.
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 like horse shows and auctions. The bill's background is directly shaped by post-Loper Bright dynamics: a court vacated parts of APHIS's 2024 rule for exceeding statutory authority, illustrating that without clear congressional authorization, agency environmental and animal-welfare rules face heightened judicial scrutiny under independent review.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (APHIS/USDA) gains expanded regulatory and enforcement authority; Congress checks this through the statutory framework and penalty limits it sets, while federal courts retain authority to review APHIS rules and enforcement actions for consistency with the statute.
Historical precedent
The original Horse Protection Act of 1970 first prohibited soring, but its reliance on industry self-inspection has been repeatedly criticized; Congress has attempted similar strengthening legislation in prior sessions (e.g., the PAST Act introduced in the 114th–118th Congresses) without enactment.