On June 30, 2025, the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association (“Association”), along with horse owners Tom Gould and Ann Mills, sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA” or “Agency”) challenging multiple USDA decisions disqualifying horses in past shows and challenging the USDA rules that were applied to disqualify those horses. The lawsuit asserts that USDA has been unlawfully disqualifying horses and violating trainers’ and owners’ due process rights by failing to provide any mechanism to review disqualification decisions. The lawsuit focuses on three challenges that may have impacts across the industry.

First, the lawsuit challenges USDA’s “No-Showback Rule,” through which the Agency extends the scope of any disqualification to cover an entire multi-day horse show. Under this Rule, a horse that is disqualified may not reappear in any other class or on any other day of competition, even if that horse is not sore and could pass inspection. Because this rule prevents horses that are not sore from competing, it exceeds USDA’s authority under the Horse Protection Act (“HPA”).

Second, the lawsuit challenges the USDA’s failure to give horse owners and trainers any opportunity to challenge disqualification decisions. USDA’s rules provide no hearing or other means—either before or after a disqualification—by which an owner or trainer can challenge a disqualification and argue that a horse inspector’s decision was wrong. That violates the most fundamental principles of the Due Process Clause, which requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard in connection with any government deprivation of a liberty or property interest. As the new lawsuit points out, two federal courts have found that the failure of USDA to offer any review mechanism before a disqualification violates the constitutional rights of owners and trainers—including the court in the successful case brought by the Association last year. Despite these decisions, USDA continues to impose the same unconstitutional regime.

Third, the suit challenges the USDA’s continued enforcement of the Scar Rule, a regulation describing certain conditions which, if found on a horse’s legs, require deeming that horse to be sore. The Scar Rule exceeds the USDA’s authority under the HPA because it uses soring criteria that differ from those set by Congress in the Act. In addition, after a review conducted at USDA’s request, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine told the USDA years ago that the criteria in the Scar Rule have no actual scientific connection to soring and that they cannot be consistently applied—and thus produce arbitrary results. The failure of USDA to provide any meaningful criteria to identify soreness also means the Rule is unconstitutionally vague.

The lawsuit asks the Court to enter a preliminary injunction to immediately stop USDA from continuing to disqualify horses under the challenged rules and without affording owners and trainers any guaranteed right to appeal a disqualification. It also asks the Court to prohibit the USDA from applying the unlawful rules pending a final decision on the merits in this case.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: How does this lawsuit relate to the Wright lawsuit challenging the current USDA rules?

A: The Wright lawsuit and this lawsuit raise some of the same claims. Both suits challenge USDA disqualifications under the Scar Rule and the failure of USDA to provide owners and trainers with the ability to appeal disqualifications. Many of the arguments we are making in this case were also raised in the Wright case.

Unlike the Wright case, this lawsuit also challenges the No-Showback Rule. A victory in the Wright suit will not have any impact on the No-Showback Rule.

In addition, we are seeking a preliminary injunction in this case, which was not sought in the Wright case. There is a high burden to win a preliminary injunction, a burden we believe can be met in this case.

Q: When will the court rule on the lawsuit?

A: We are asking the Court to rule and grant the preliminary injunction before the Celebration begins on August 20.

Q: Does the lawsuit help all horse owners and trainers?

A: The lawsuit is brought on behalf of Tom Gould, Ann Mills, and the Association, but it seeks relief that would affect all horse owners and trainers. Because the disqualifications rely on rules that are used against all horse owners and trainers, the lawsuit asks the Court to set aside the rules themselves so that USDA would not be able to apply those rules to anyone in the future.

Q: What about other things the USDA does? Why isn’t the USDA’s foreign substance policy part of this lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit challenges rules that we believe are both causing the greatest amount of harm and that give us the best chance of success.