SHELBYVILLE, Tenn. — Attorneys representing industry plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit challenging portions of the USDA’s enforcement of the Horse Protection Act filed a reply brief Friday urging the court to fully vacate the contested disqualifications from the 2024 Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association as well as the underlying rules used to impose them.
The reply brief, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, argues that the USDA has effectively conceded key legal principles in the case, including that vacatur — setting aside unlawful agency action — is the default remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act in the Fifth Circuit.
The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from Torridon Law PLLC contend the USDA is attempting to improperly narrow relief only to horses owned by named plaintiffs Tom Gould and Ann Mills, while leaving intact disqualifications that The Celebration was forced to enforce during the 2024 show.
According to the filing, The Celebration itself suffered direct harm because it was required by USDA to implement the challenged disqualifications under the Scar Rule, No-Showback Rule and related inspection regulations.
The filing also emphasizes that Humane World for Animals, despite opposing the plaintiffs’ requested relief overall, acknowledged that vacatur is the “default” remedy under current Fifth Circuit precedent and disagreed with USDA’s position seeking to limit relief only to named parties.
Industry attorneys further argued that USDA’s request to stay the case pending a separate Fifth Circuit appeal lacks merit because the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or satisfy the legal standards required for a stay.
The plaintiffs additionally pointed to USDA’s own recent actions halting enforcement of the challenged rules for the entire Industry while the agency revises its inspection and appeals procedures.
The brief also accuses Humane World for Animals of “forum shopping” after the organization filed a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., seeking to force USDA to reinstate enforcement of the Scar Rule, No-Showback Rule and related disqualification procedures.
In the filing, plaintiffs ask the court to enter final judgment vacating:
*The No-Showback Rule contained in the USDA’s 2010 Points of Emphasis
*The horse inspection regulations under 9 C.F.R. § 11.4, alleging lack of procedural due process
*The Scar Rule under 9 C.F.R. § 11.3
*The challenged horse disqualifications from the 2024 Celebration
The reply brief follows the court’s earlier preliminary injunction ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, where the court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on several claims challenging USDA enforcement procedures and rules under the Horse Protection Act.