The Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act of 2025 amends the Horse Protection Act to broaden prohibited conduct, create a Department of Agriculture-led licensing system for inspectors, increase civil and criminal penalties, and require public posting of violations. The bill defines “action devices,” forbids their use along with weighted or gait-altering shoes, and expands who can be held responsible by defining “participate” to include transporting, instructing, or knowingly being present in restricted areas.
For industry professionals this is a substantive compliance shift: inspections move toward USDA-licensed personnel (with a statutory preference for veterinarians), management may notify USDA to request assigned inspectors, and repeated violations trigger escalating disqualification periods for horses and potential permanent disqualification for repeat offenders. The bill also imposes higher fines and longer potential prison terms and creates new enforcement mechanics (citations by licensed inspectors, required Secretary notifications, and a public APHIS violations list).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends definitions, adds explicit bans on ‘action devices’ and non‑protective weighted or gait‑altering shoes at shows or auctions, requires the Secretary of Agriculture to license and assign inspectors (with a preference for veterinarians), and mandates public posting of violations. It raises maximum fines and prison terms and prescribes multistage disqualification periods for sore horses and recurring violations.
Who It Affects
Owners, trainers, and handlers of Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses; horse show and auction managers; veterinarians and individuals who inspect horses; and the USDA’s APHIS program responsible for enforcement.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts inspection authority and compliance obligations toward a centralized, USDA‑run licensing regime, tightens the legal definition of prohibited tools and behaviors, and increases criminal and civil exposure for repeat actors—changing how shows operate and raising enforcement costs and legal risk across the industry.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The PAST Act changes the Horse Protection Act in several interconnected ways. It inserts a new statutory definition of “action device” to capture boots, collars, chains, rollers, or other items that rotate or slide on a horse’s lower leg and cause friction or striking of the hoof or pastern; it explicitly excludes soft rubber or soft leather protective boots.
It also broadens the statute’s reach by adding a definition of “participate” to include transporting horses to events, giving instructions to exhibitors, and knowingly being present in restricted warm‑up or inspection areas—conduct that can now trigger liability even absent direct application of a prohibited device.
On enforcement, the bill replaces the ad hoc appointment model for inspectors with a USDA licensure system. The Secretary must issue regulations for licensing, training, assignment, conflict‑of‑interest rules, and oversight; licensure is conditioned on being free from conflicts of interest and the Secretary must give preference to licensed or accredited veterinarians.
Management of a show can notify the Secretary up to 30 days before an event to request assigned licensed inspectors; assigned inspectors must issue citations for observed violations and notify the Secretary within five days.Substantively prohibited acts are expanded. The bill makes it unlawful to cause or direct a horse to be sore for purposes of showing, selling, or auctioning, and it expressly bans the use of action devices as defined and the use of weighted shoes, pads, wedges, hoof bands, or other gait‑altering devices that are not strictly protective or therapeutic.
The statute also changes language to reflect USDA hiring and oversight of inspectors rather than volunteer appointment systems.Penalties increase materially. Knowingly violating the Act or its regulations (including violations recorded during USDA‑conducted inspections) becomes punishable by fines up to $5,000 per violation and up to three years’ imprisonment.
Administrative penalties for civil violations rise as well, and failure to obey disqualification orders or to pay a licensed inspector are separately criminalized with statutory fines. Horse disqualification is escalated by instance: the Secretary must disqualify a horse for at least 180 days on the first finding it is sore, at least one year on the second, and at least three years on the third, and repeat human offenders may face permanent disqualification after appropriate notice and hearing.
The Secretary must publish violations information on APHIS’s public website and issue implementing regulations within 180 days of enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines an “action device” as any boot, collar, chain, roller, or other device that rotates or slides on a horse’s lower leg so as to cause friction or strike the hoof or pastern, but exempts soft rubber or soft leather protective boots.
The Secretary of Agriculture must license, train, assign, and oversee inspectors for shows and auctions, with a statutory preference for licensed or accredited veterinarians and conflict‑of‑interest rules that can bar licensure.
A licensed inspector must issue a citation for any violation observed during an inspection and notify the Secretary within 5 days; show management may request USDA assignment by notifying the Secretary 30 days before an event.
Penalties rise to up to $5,000 and up to 3 years’ imprisonment per knowing violation; failure to obey a disqualification order and failure to pay a licensed inspector are separately punishable.
The Secretary must disqualify a horse found sore: at least 180 days for a first finding, at least 1 year for a second, at least 3 years for a third, and may permanently disqualify repeat human offenders after notice and hearing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the Prevent All Soring Tactics Act of 2025 (PAST Act of 2025). This is the organizational header; it has no operational effect but frames subsequent amendments under that banner.
New definitions: action device and participate
Adds a targeted, functional definition of “action device” that captures devices that rotate or slide and cause friction or striking, while carving out ordinary soft protective boots. It also adds a broad definition of “participate” that extends liability beyond hands‑on actors to those who transport horses, give instructions, or knowingly occupy restricted warm‑up/inspection spaces—expanding the statutory net to people who enable or facilitate shows without directly applying devices.
Findings that justify stronger enforcement
Updates the Act’s findings to note continued prevalence of soring in specific breeds and to cite an Inspector General determination that the existing inspection program is inadequate. Those findings operate rhetorically to justify the switch to a USDA licensing regime and tougher penalties and to clarify Congressional intent for courts and regulators assessing future disputes.
Licensed USDA inspectors, assignment process, and public posting
Replaces appointment language with a requirement that the Secretary license, train, assign, and oversee inspectors for hire by event management, including conflict‑of‑interest rules and revocation procedures. Management can notify USDA 30 days before an event to request assigned inspectors; assigned inspectors must issue citations and report violations to the Secretary within 5 days. The Secretary must publish violations information on APHIS’s public website. Practically, the provision centralizes control of inspections in USDA and standardizes inspector qualifications and oversight.
New unlawful acts: causing soring; action devices and gait‑altering implements
Expands the list of unlawful acts to include causing or directing a horse to be sore for showing or sale and explicitly bans action devices as defined plus weighted shoes, pads, wedges, hoof bands, or other gait‑altering items that are not strictly protective or therapeutic. It also updates terminology to reflect USDA hiring of inspectors. This changes enforcement from policing symptoms at the ring to prohibiting particular implements and conduct aimed at creating an artificial gait.
Higher fines, prison terms, disqualifications, and additional offenses
Increases criminal and civil penalties (up to $5,000 and up to 3 years’ imprisonment for knowing violations), criminalizes failure to obey disqualification orders, imposes fines for failing to pay a licensed inspector, and raises administrative penalties. The disqualification regime for horses becomes tiered—first finding triggers a minimum 180‑day ban, second a minimum one‑year ban, third a minimum three‑year ban—and the Secretary may permanently disqualify repeat human offenders after notice and hearing. The section also mandates implementing regulations within 180 days.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Tennessee Walking, Racking, and Spotted Saddle horses — by extending statutory protections against soring, banning specific devices and gait‑altering implements, and creating a centralized inspection regime intended to reduce deceptive practices.
- Horse buyers and the spectating public — because explicit device bans and public posting of violations aim to reduce fraudulent gait enhancement and improve transparency at shows and auctions.
- Licensed veterinarians — the statute gives a preference to licensed/accredited veterinarians for licensure as inspectors, creating new professional roles and potential revenue streams for vets who participate in inspections and training.
Who Bears the Cost
- Trainers, handlers, and owners who use or rely on action devices or gait‑altering weighted shoes — they face loss of tools, higher enforcement risk, potential criminal exposure, and longer disqualification periods for animals.
- Show and auction managers — they may face higher operational costs to coordinate USDA‑assigned inspectors, potential liability for hiring practices, and reputational risk if violations are posted publicly.
- USDA/APHIS — the agency must create and manage a licensing, training, assignment, oversight, public‑posting, and enforcement apparatus under a 180‑day regulatory deadline, which will require resources, staffing, and rulemaking capacity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between robust, centralized enforcement to stop deliberate soring and the risk of overbroad or uneven enforcement that penalizes legitimate protective practices and peripheral actors: the bill tightens tools to protect horses and buyers while shifting heavy administrative, procedural, and criminal burdens onto USDA, event managers, and industry participants—a trade‑off between animal welfare gains and operational, fiscal, and due‑process costs.
The bill centralizes inspections in USDA but does not appropriate funds; APHIS will need staffing and operational support to license inspectors, resolve conflicts of interest, deploy inspectors to geographically dispersed events, and maintain a public violations log. Without new appropriations or reallocation, implementation could lag, producing inconsistent enforcement or shifting inspection costs to event managers.
The statutory preference for veterinarians addresses quality but may constrict the pool of available inspectors in rural areas, and the conflict‑of‑interest standard may produce disputes over who qualifies to inspect.
Several enforcement mechanics create implementation and legal risks. The expanded definition of “participate” extends liability to transporters, instructors, and others who may be peripheral to soring practices, potentially exposing logistics providers and agents to criminal or administrative penalties.
The statutory ban on “weighted” or gait‑altering devices hinges on the Secretary’s forthcoming regulations (and the statutory carve‑out for protective boots), so the practical line between therapeutic and prohibited equipment will depend heavily on regulatory detail and subsequent litigated definitions. Finally, criminal penalties—including imprisonment—raise due process concerns where citations from USDA‑licensed inspectors drive prosecutions; the bill relies on post‑inspection notices and administrative hearings for disqualification, but those mechanisms may not resolve evidentiary disputes that lead to criminal charges.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.