Listen to this story.

USDA-inspector

USDA photo

A U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian inspects a Tennessee Walking Horse for signs of soring, the practice of using chemicals or devices to elicit an exaggerated gait through pain. A pending rule change would replace inspectors from industry with those vetted and trained by the USDA.

The federal agency charged with enforcing horse protection regulations announced last week that it will delay the effective date of a rule intended to fortify prohibitions on soring, the practice of using chemicals or mechanical devices on show horses to induce pain to elicit an exaggerated gait that wins competitions.

The deferral was the third since the Horse Protection Amendments were published in May 2024 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS). Originally slated to take effect in February 2025, the measures have been weakened and stalled by industry legal challenges.

A court has nullified several provisions of the rule. The remaining provisions are set to become effective on Dec. 31, according to the APHIS announcement. That is barring additional developments, such as the outcome of an active lawsuit and a call by some lawmakers for the USDA to abandon the rule.

The USDA said in its Jan. 28 announcement that it remains committed to ending soring and to enforcing the Horse Protection Act (HPA), a law enacted in 1970 intended to eradicate soring. The agency said it will "use this period to evaluate potential new rulemakings or revisions that align with court rulings and Congressional intent."

Dr. Tracy Turner, immediate past president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, expressed disappointment over the decision to delay what he called "long-overdue reforms." He said in a statement emailed to the VIN News Service, "... the AAEP understands the challenges and supports APHIS's decision to delay implementation until they are able to issue a rule that can be truly impactful."

Sentiments were similar at the American Veterinary Medical Association. "The AVMA continues to strongly support public policy efforts to end the inhumane practice of soring," Dr. Michael Q. Bailey, AVMA president, said in an emailed statement. "While we are disappointed by the postponement of the new Horse Protection Act amendments, we remain committed to staying engaged throughout the rulemaking process."

Lawsuit strips some provisions

APHIS pursued the recent rule changes after repeated legislative and regulatory efforts failed to fix weaknesses in the HPA.

The new rule would replace an industry-led inspection program with USDA-vetted and -trained inspectors. In addition, it included a ban on implements, such as boots, collars, chains and bangles, placed on a horse's lower forelegs and feet to cause pain so the horse lifts its legs higher to escape the discomfort. The exaggerated gait, known as the "big lick," is sought-after in competitions featuring walking and racking breed horses.

The rule also would have changed the criteria inspectors use to identify physical evidence of soring. Current regulations use something called the "scar rule," meaning any visible scars, hair loss or tissue damage on the pasterns can be taken as a sign of soring. The change in regulations would have expanded the list of conditions that indicate soring, including evidence of masking agents, like topical creams or dyes used to hide skin irritation.

Days after the rule was published in May 2024, The Walking Horse Report, an industry publication, reported that the rule would be challenged in court. Two months later, the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association and two owners of walking horses that perform with devices sued the USDA.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where the horse-owner plaintiffs live, claimed the rule "could wipe out the Tennessee Walking Horse Industry." It described the provisions as "draconian" and said the agency was taking "a scorched earth approach."

The plaintiffs argued that APHIS exceeded its statutory authority in the 2024 rule by adopting "arbitrary and capricious" measures, including a blanket prohibition on the use of pads and action devices.

The plaintiffs contended that the problem was with "disreputable trainers" and that "scientific evidence — both old and new — make clear that this equipment does not cause soring." They also argued that the proposed inspection criteria that would replace those in the scar rule fail to provide adequate due process to owners and trainers.

In January 2025, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk vacated, or voided, several key provisions in the pending regulation, including the prohibition of pads and action devices and replacing the scar rule. Kacsmaryk upheld the provision that replaces industry-selected inspectors with those authorized by APHIS and hired by shows and for sales and auctions, where the HPA also applies.

Public weighs in, again

Following the court's ruling, APHIS announced in March 2025 that the effective date of the regulation would be pushed to Feb. 1, 2026, and requested comment on whether the postponement should be extended.

In a summary published in the Federal Register, APHIS said it received 6,124 comments from parties including horse industry organizations, veterinary associations, equine veterinarians, animal welfare groups, horse owners, trainers and exhibitors, small business owners and more.

Many comments supported further postponement of the rule to allow time "to carry out their suggestions of reopening the comment period on the final rule, holding listening sessions, and/or initiating new rulemaking," APHIS said. It also said many commenters wanted the rule to "never go into effect and instead urged a withdrawal or rewrite of the rule."

Those commenters cited concerns that included an insufficient number of trained inspectors, insufficient funds for USDA inspections, increased costs — especially at small, local events — and the opinion that the final rule "was unworkable as currently written."

horse-with-soring-implements

USDA photo by Christophe Paul

A horse fitted with a flat shoe and hoof band — devices used in soring — stands in the show ring during a competition in Harrodsburg, Kentucky, in 2023.

APHIS said many other comments, including variations of a single letter submitted by more than 5,000 people, as well as a letter submitted by an animal advocacy organization with more than 87,500 signatories, "expressed strong support for the non-vacated provisions" of the rule and "advocated for no further postponement."

Many among those commenters stated that further delaying implementation "would perpetuate an inadequate inspection model that leaves horses at risk of soring," according to APHIS. They also highlighted that the non-vacated provisions "have already undergone extensive public input, were finalized through a lawful rulemaking process and have been upheld by the court."

According to AAEP's Turner, the association supports the still-intact provisions that "eliminate industry self-regulation." 

For his part, Turner, who retired in 2023 from an equine sports medicine practice in Minnesota, doesn't see any place for action devices.

"I personally am adamant that if we want to stop soring, the use of chains in the show ring must end," he said. "While those who support the use of chains argue that the chains do not cause pain directly to the horse, chains are used to condition the horse to painful stimuli."

More pushback from industry, lawmakers

Close on the heels of the comment period deadline, the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association filed a second suit, this time against APHIS and the agriculture secretary. The association was joined by two plaintiffs who own Tennessee Walking Horses that had been disqualified from competition in recent years.

This second complaint, filed in June 2025, disputes not the new rule but aspects of existing regulations and associated guidance.

The plaintiffs are challenging the "No-Showback Rule," a policy that prohibits a disqualified horse from being inspected in a different class or on a different day of the show. The complaint also challenges the original scar rule and the adequacy of due process protections for horse owners disqualified by USDA inspectors.

The plaintiffs sought and were granted a preliminary injunction preventing the USDA from enforcing these rules and policies against them. APHIS has determined that although the injunction applies only to the plaintiffs, "it renders implementation of the final rule piecemeal and unmanageable" so long as the litigation is pending.

Meanwhile, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform opened an investigation in 2024 into enforcement of the HPA and the promulgation of the rule "after receiving allegations of arbitrary enforcement of the HPA, lack of due process and potential retribution against horse trainers," according to a press release from the office of Kentucky Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee.

In May 2025, Comer asked the agency to abolish the rule. In a letter to Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, he said, "The Committee discovered significant concerns regarding the enforcement process, particularly regarding inspectors' behavior and decision-making, and a lack of sufficient transparency and accountability."

Last November, the House Committee Report accompanying the fiscal year 2026 appropriations package directed APHIS to withdraw the 2024 final rule, according to the agency.

Setbacks to soring reform mount

Marty Irby is disappointed with where things stand. A past president of the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders' & Exhibitors' Association and former director of equine protection at the Humane Society of the U.S., he has a long history advocating an end to soring.

"After more than six decades of abuse, it's clear that USDA's strategy of regulating soring — rather than eliminating it — has failed," he told VIN News by email. "Since the Horse Protection Act was enacted in 1970, the federal government has repeatedly proven incapable of eradicating soring, despite knowing exactly how and where it occurs."

Over the years, Irby said, he warned that regulatory efforts "were not designed to survive legal scrutiny nor to meaningfully protect horses." He points to the industry's repeated court victories as proof.

"Ending soring is not impossible — but pretending it can be achieved without structural legislative reform has cost horses decades of continued suffering," he said.

A legislative fix, called the Prevent All Soring Tactics Act (PAST Act), has been introduced in every Congressional session between 2015 and 2025. Every year, the bill has stalled due to opposition from Kentucky and Tennessee senators. For the first time in a decade, no version of the PAST Act has been introduced this year.