The Celebration seeks intervention as remaining claim focuses on delayed federal inspector program

WASHINGTON — Humane World for Animals has narrowed its lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture following a Texas federal court ruling that struck down three disputed horse protection regulations. The Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association, meanwhile, is seeking to intervene to protect its interests in the remaining dispute over USDA’s delayed implementation of a new inspection system.

In a Sept. 25 amended complaint, Humane World and its fellow plaintiffs eliminated three of the four claims in their original lawsuit. The change followed the Aug. 28 ruling in Gould v. USDA, which vacated the scar rule, no-showback rule and challenged disqualification procedures.

The remaining claim challenges USDA’s postponement of surviving provisions of its 2024 Horse Protection Act rule, particularly those replacing the existing industry inspector system with USDA-trained and authorized horse protection inspectors.

Humane World, formerly the Humane Society of the United States, filed the original complaint April 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Joining the organization are Humane World Action Fund and five individual plaintiffs. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan.

The original lawsuit alleged USDA and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service unlawfully abandoned enforcement of the scar rule, no-showback rule and disqualification procedures, while also effectively withdrawing the surviving portions of the 2024 rule through repeated delays.

The plaintiffs argued those decisions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Horse Protection Act. They maintained that USDA had abandoned duly adopted regulations without the required procedures or an adequate explanation.

The Texas court’s Aug. 28 judgment substantially changed that dispute.

In Gould, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk granted summary judgment to The Celebration and the other industry plaintiffs, vacating the three challenged regulatory measures in their entirety. That relief extended beyond the court’s August 2025 preliminary injunction, which had protected only the named plaintiffs.

Humane World acknowledged the effect of the final judgment in its Sept. 25 notice of amendment, explaining that it had eliminated three claims because the regulations underlying them had been vacated.

The amendment leaves the delayed 2024 rule as the central issue.

Under its surviving inspector provisions, USDA-trained horse protection inspectors would replace the industry’s designated qualified persons, commonly known as DQPs. A January 2025 Texas court decision upheld that portion of the rule while setting aside other provisions.

USDA subsequently postponed implementation. According to the amended complaint, its January 2026 decision delayed implementation until Dec. 31, 2026, citing an insufficient number of trained inspectors and uncertainty arising from ongoing litigation.

Humane World contends the repeated postponements amount to an unlawful “constructive withdrawal” of the rule. It argues the existing industry inspection system fails to adequately prevent soring and asks the Washington court to set aside USDA’s delay decision and return the matter to the agency for implementation.
Those assertions remain allegations awaiting a court decision.

The Celebration moved to intervene Aug. 28, arguing that the lawsuit could directly affect its horse shows, inspection arrangements and operating costs. Its attorneys, Patrick Philbin and John Coghlan of Torridon Law, requested intervention as a matter of right or, alternatively, permission from the court to participate as a defendant.

The Celebration’s initial brief characterized the original lawsuit as an attempt to circumvent the Texas litigation by seeking enforcement of the same rules the industry was challenging there.

It also identified a separate interest in the new inspector program, arguing that immediate implementation would prevent it from using its existing DQP system, impose additional expenses and create practical difficulties because too few replacement inspectors were available.

Humane World opposed intervention Sept. 11. It argued that its case challenges USDA’s decisions to abandon or postpone regulations, rather than the legality of the regulations themselves.

The plaintiffs also maintained that USDA could adequately defend its postponement decision and that The Celebration’s participation would duplicate government arguments and complicate the case. They pointed to The Celebration’s successful opposition to Humane World’s intervention in the earlier Texas challenge to the 2024 rule.

In its Sept. 18 reply, The Celebration rejected that comparison. It argued that the earlier case concerned USDA’s authority to adopt the rule, while the Washington lawsuit concerns the agency’s authority to delay implementation under the circumstances it faced.

The Celebration emphasized that it would bear the costs and operational consequences of implementing the new inspector system. It maintained that USDA’s broader responsibility to the public would not adequately represent those specific interests.

The Celebration’s intervention papers include a proposed brief seeking transfer of the Washington case to the Northern District of Texas. That brief argues that related litigation and the Texas court’s familiarity with the regulations favor transfer and would reduce the risk of conflicting decisions.

Humane World disputes that position, maintaining that Washington is the appropriate venue for its challenge to federal agency decisions. The proposed transfer brief was submitted as an exhibit to the intervention request.

The filings also describe a Sept. 10 order denying a request, supported by USDA, to temporarily pause proceedings. Humane World said a short stay would have allowed the parties to assess the Gould judgment and a forthcoming USDA rulemaking that might resolve some or all of its claims.

With the Sept. 25 amendment, the Washington lawsuit no longer asks the court to restore enforcement of the three measures vacated in Gould. The dispute now centers on whether USDA lawfully delayed the surviving 2024 rule and whether The Celebration may participate to address the consequences for the industry.

The Texas judgment therefore removed a substantial portion of Humane World’s original case, but it did not resolve the separate challenge to USDA’s postponed inspector program.