Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Horse owners Tom Gould and Mills, along with a horse-show association, challenged three USDA policies used to enforce the Horse Protection Act: the “No-Showback Rule,” which bars a horse found sore from competing again during a multi-day show; the “Scar Rule,” which treats specified skin conditions as evidence of soreness; and inspection procedures that disqualify horses without an opportunity for review. They sought a preliminary injunction before the 2025 Celebration, where Gould and Mills intended to compete and the association would be required to enforce USDA disqualifications.
The USDA argued, among other things, that the claims were untimely because the challenged policies had existed and had been applied to the plaintiffs for more than six years. The court rejected that defense because the USDA had taken direct, final action against the plaintiffs within six years of suit, including disqualifications involving Gould’s and Mills’s horses in 2023 and 2024.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed in showing that the No-Showback and Scar Rules exceed the USDA’s statutory authority. In the court’s view, the Horse Protection Act authorizes disqualification of a horse that is presently sore or reasonably expected to suffer pain, not a horse that was sore in the past. The No-Showback Rule could therefore exclude a horse after its soreness had dissipated, while the Scar Rule could disqualify a horse based on hair loss, skin conditions, or evidence of past injury without proof that the horse currently met the Act’s definition of “sore.”
The court also found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their due-process claim because the existing inspection system permits disqualification based on a single inspector’s decision without meaningful pre-deprivation review. It further concluded that Gould, Mills, and the association faced irreparable harm, and that the equities and public interest favored relief because the government has no legitimate interest in exceeding its authority or denying constitutionally adequate process.
The injunction bars the defendants from enforcing the No-Showback Rule, the Scar Rule, and disqualification procedures lacking adequate due process, but only to the extent necessary to provide complete relief to the named plaintiffs. The court expressly declined to issue a universal injunction.
Key Takeaways
- A later final agency action applying an older regulation to a plaintiff can permit a timely challenge within the six-year limitations period.
- The court found that evidence of past soreness, scarring, hair loss, or other skin conditions cannot alone justify disqualification under the Horse Protection Act without present or reasonably expected pain or distress.
- Horse disqualification procedures based on one inspector’s decision, with no meaningful opportunity for pre-deprivation review, likely violate due process.
Why It Matters
The ruling limits how the USDA may apply Horse Protection Act enforcement policies to the named horse owners and association while the litigation proceeds. Although preventing horse soring remains a legitimate and important objective, the court held at the preliminary-injunction stage that the agency must remain within the statute’s definition of soreness and provide constitutionally adequate procedures.
The decision also illustrates the narrower remedial approach required after the Supreme Court’s rejection of universal injunctions: the court tailored relief to the parties before it rather than blocking the challenged policies nationwide.