The industry’s lawsuit against the USDA’s final rulemaking has cleared its final hurdles with the deadlines for the USDA to appeal the decision or anyone other party’s attempt to intervene and appeal passed.  That means the case is closed and the industry will now move forward with the pending litigation in West Tennessee that challenges the current enforcement of the HPA in the areas of due process, scar rule and post show inflammation.

Judge Matthew J, Kacsmaryk summarized in his opinion, “The Court HOLDS that: (1) USDA exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a blanket prohibition on action devices, pads and substances; (2) the DCIS provision replacing the Scar Rule fails to provide adequate due process; and (3) the lack of genuine pre- and post-deprivation review in the 2024 Rule fails to provide adequate due process.  The USDA did prevail on the Horse Protection Inspector provision in the rule, which would have eliminated Designated Qualified Persons as inspectors, but USDA has since postponed that portion of the rule another year and a comment period will close on May 20th allowing stakeholders to weigh in on the delay and how USDA should proceed.

The next step in the Wright’s v. USDA lawsuit is an oral argument on the USDA’s motion to dismiss.  This hearing will be held Tuesday May 6th, in Memphis.   The USDA is seeking to limit the relief in the case to the Wright’s and not allow the relief to apply industry wide.  Two federal courts, the Honors case in the 11th Circuit and the Celebration’s case in the 5th (the case just completed), have now ruled that the current enforcement scheme employed by USDA violates the due process rights of exhibitors.

The USDA must incorporate a new system that allows some form of due process which Judge Kacsmaryk emphasized in his opinion must be pre-deprivation and not post-deprivation due process, like the USDA attempted to provide in their most recent rulemaking.