HR-7371-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Sponsored by Troy Nehls (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would prohibit air carriers from knowingly transporting adult roosters (male chickens at least 6 months old) as cargo in interstate or foreign air commerce. It would create an exemption for shipments originating from or destined for commercial farms — defined as farms with $350,000 or more in annual gross cash farm income — provided the shipper submits documentation certifying the farm's commercial status before transport. The Secretary of Transportation would enforce the prohibition through civil penalties, and states would retain the ability to impose stricter restrictions.
Who benefits
Animal welfare advocates who oppose cockfighting, which the bill's findings link to unregulated rooster transport. Aviation safety advocates who argue live animal cargo poses operational risks. The commercial egg and meat poultry industry, which retains full access to air transport under the exemption. State and federal law enforcement agencies working to disrupt cockfighting networks. Airlines and air cargo operators who may face reduced liability and operational disruptions from non-commercial rooster shipments.
Who is hurt
Small-scale or hobbyist poultry keepers who fall below the $350,000 commercial farm income threshold and would lose access to air transport for roosters. Breeders of heritage, show, or specialty rooster breeds who ship birds for agricultural fairs, breeding programs, or exhibitions. Individuals in U.S. territories or geographically isolated areas who rely on air transport for legitimate poultry movement. Air cargo brokers and freight forwarders who currently handle non-commercial rooster shipments. Cockfighting operators, who are the bill's primary target but represent an illegal activity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the rapid, unregulated air transport of adult roosters is a documented enabler of cockfighting — a federal felony under the Animal Welfare Act — and that restricting this transport directly disrupts an illegal supply chain. They contend that the commercial farm exemption carefully preserves legitimate agricultural use while targeting the narrow category of shipments most associated with illegal activity, and that the bill's aviation safety and biosecurity rationale is grounded in the FAA and DOT's established authority over civil air cargo operations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's $350,000 income threshold for the commercial farm exemption is an arbitrary cutoff that would burden small, legitimate poultry operations and rural breeders who have no connection to cockfighting. They contend that existing federal law already criminalizes cockfighting and that adding a cargo restriction layers regulatory compliance costs onto law-abiding shippers without clear evidence that air transport is the primary vector for illegal rooster distribution, which could be addressed through targeted enforcement of existing statutes.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate air cargo in interstate and foreign commerce is well-established under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and the bill explicitly invokes that nexus. Under Wickard v. Filburn (1942), even localized economic activity with an aggregate effect on interstate commerce falls within congressional reach. The bill delegates enforcement rulemaking to the Secretary of Transportation; post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), any regulations promulgated under this authority would face independent judicial review rather than automatic deference.
Checks and balances
Congress gains a new statutory prohibition enforceable through DOT and FAA; the Secretary of Transportation gains rulemaking authority to implement the ban, subject to judicial review under the post-Loper Bright independent-judgment standard.
Historical precedent
The federal Animal Welfare Act (1976 amendments) and the Animal Fighting Venture Prohibition have previously restricted interstate transport of animals associated with fighting, establishing a precedent for using commerce-based restrictions to target illegal animal fighting operations.