Editor’s note: The following article was submitted to The Walking Horse Report by Equine Attorney and former Tennessee Walking Horse exhibitor, Kimbrell Hines, Esq.

The Horse Protection Act (HPA) was passed in 1970 to eliminate the practice of “soring,” which involves intentionally causing pain to a horse’s feet or legs to exaggerate its gait. While originally aimed at gaited breeds like the Tennessee Walking Horse, the HPA is not exclusive to gaited horse breeds, and its future direction should concern all horse owners, exhibitors, professionals and enthusiasts.

The HPA prohibits any horse that is determined to have been sored from being shown, exhibited, auctioned, or transported. The HPA’s vaguely defined terms and changing regulations mean that even responsible owners, trainers, exhibitors, and event managers can find themselves facing legal, professional, and reputational consequences for noncompliance with the HPA. 

Recently, the HPA has been brought into sharper focus by the June 2025 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which was requested to review enforcement practices by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). This review was requested following controversial inspections at the 2024 Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration.

What the Inspector General Found: Key Issues for Our Industry
The OIG’s investigation spotlighted serious concerns in how the HPA is enforced, many of which TWHBEA members have raised for years. According to the OIG’s report, HPA past enforcement issues include:

1. Lack of Conflict-of-Interest Safeguards

The OIG found that APHIS had no clear policy to prevent conflicts of interest among their Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs) and inspectors. In response to this claim, APHIS issued a new “Standards of Professional Behavior” policy in March 2025, including ethics requirements and conflict-of-interest provisions.

2. Due Process Violations

The OIG recognized that disqualified participants at major events, which included 2024 Celebration exhibitors, had no meaningful opportunity to challenge their disqualification onsite at the horse show or shortly after. The OIG concluded this raises constitutional concerns, and a federal court has agreed that post-disqualification appeals are not enough. APHIS is now weighing alternative dispute resolution procedures, expected to be in place before the 2026 horse show season.

3. Inconsistent Inspection Standards

The OIG’s report documented inconsistent application of inspection methods across different events and personnel. APHIS has pledged to retrain inspectors and standardize inspection criteria, promising these updates before the end of the 2025 show season, although it is unclear when these improvements will be made as the conclusion of the 2025 show season approaches. 

4. Poor Communication with Show Organizers

The OIG also noted that APHIS was slow to provide inspection guidance, having issuing updates in the past during the middle of the horse show season. These untimely updates made compliance unnecessarily difficult for show managers and exhibitors. APHIS now promises to deliver updated rules and procedures by February 1 of each year, giving stakeholders time to prepare.

The Road Ahead: Reform with Integrity

For years, the Tennessee Walking Horse industry has borne the brunt of HPA enforcement. This OIG’s June 2025 report validates what many have claimed they experienced: unfair regulatory practices that lack transparency and predictability. 

The HPA is a result of failed self-regulation and management of public perception in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry and the consequences of these failures have been severe. The OIG report gives the Tennessee Walking Horse industry a rare opportunity: to use federal acknowledgment of enforcement flaws as a springboard for real, lasting reform. 

The Tennessee Walking Horse industry must advocate for fair rules that prioritize actual horse welfare, without overburdening responsible competitors and exhibitors. That advocacy requires the industry to take the following actions:

1. Demanding clear, objective criteria for what constitutes “soring”
2. Insisting on fair, due process protections for those accused of soring horses
3. Supporting research and evidence-based inspection methods, not subjective evaluations
Horse owners, trainers, and event managers should stay informed on proposed HPA rule changes, participate in public comment opportunities, and engage with other breed and show associations to shape regulatory policy. A more educated and unified equine community is essential to ensure that HPA enforcement protects horses without negatively affecting the future of the breed. 

*** Kimbrell J. Hines is an active equestrian and equine attorney with Turkel Cuva Barrios, P.A. She represents clients in matters involving horse injuries, sales, leases, boarding disputes, and breed and horse show regulatory compliance. She holds a J.D. and B.A. from the University of Florida and a M.S. from the University of Tennessee. She can be reached at [email protected] or 813-834-9191.

This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney for guidance on your specific situation.