This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to expand protections against animal fighting by (1) adding a statutory definition for “rooster,” (2) forbidding sponsorship, exhibition, and gambling on animal fighting ventures (including broadcast events), and (3) prohibiting use of the mail or other interstate instrumentalities to transport roosters. It also adds a private civil‑suit mechanism, sets civil fines, and authorizes seizure and forfeiture of property used to facilitate animal fighting.
The changes create new enforcement tools for both the federal government and private litigants, raise the stakes for organizers and facilitators of cockfighting, and insert an explicit mailing prohibition into the U.S. Code. Compliance officers, carriers, venue owners, and animal‑welfare organizations should evaluate operational exposure — particularly where animals cross state lines, events are streamed, or property is used to host fights.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends 7 U.S.C. 2132 and 2156 to define a rooster as a male Gallus domesticus older than six months; criminalizes sponsoring/exhibiting animals in fighting ventures, causing under‑16s to attend, and gambling (including broadcasts); and bars using the postal service or other interstate instrumentalities to transport roosters. Adds private civil suits, fines up to $5,000 per violation, and broad seizure authority for property used to facilitate violations.
Who It Affects
Organizers, hosts, and bettors involved in animal fighting; shippers and carriers handling roosters; owners and leaseholders of properties used for fights; the Department of Agriculture (Secretary) and law enforcement who investigate and execute seizures; and animal‑welfare groups that could bring citizen suits.
Why It Matters
The bill pairs traditional criminal enforcement with civil remedies and private enforcement, expanding deterrence beyond organizers to intermediaries (shippers, venue owners, platforms broadcasting events). It also brings mailing prohibitions into the federal nonmailable statute, creating exposure for carriers and mail processors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The FIGHT Act inserts a brief but consequential set of amendments into the Animal Welfare Act. First, it supplies a concrete statutory definition of “rooster” — any male Gallus domesticus older than six months — which narrows ambiguity about what animals the prohibitions cover and matters for enforcement thresholds.
Second, the bill recasts and expands the existing Section 26 prohibitions so that sponsoring or exhibiting an animal at a fighting venture is explicitly unlawful, and it clarifies that causing a person under 16 to attend is also illegal.
A notable expansion is the gambling prohibition: the statute now makes it unlawful to gamble on an animal fighting venture and expressly covers both in‑person and broadcast events. That language broadens liability beyond physical venues to anyone facilitating or profiting from wagers tied to streamed or otherwise remotely consumed fights.
The bill also amends the transportation provision to ban use of the postal service or other interstate instrumentalities to transport roosters — a direct attempt to cut off trafficking channels that move animals across state lines.On enforcement, the bill layers in civil enforcement tools. It empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and pursue penalties, but it also authorizes private citizens to sue to enjoin violations after providing 60 days' notice to the Secretary and local law enforcement.
Courts may award fines (up to $5,000 per violation) and the statute authorizes awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. Finally, for persons found to have violated sponsorship/exhibition prohibitions, the bill authorizes seizure and forfeiture of real property and appurtenances used to commit or facilitate the offense — including leasehold interests — which creates a severe civil remedy aimed at depriving organizers of venues and economic bases for violations.Two technical corrections appear at the end: the conflict‑of‑law clause is clarified so state laws remain unless directly irreconcilable, and the bill amends title 39 to list the amended Section 26 among nonmailable items, aligning the mailing prohibition with the Postal Service Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “rooster” as any male Gallus domesticus older than six months, creating an explicit age threshold for enforcement.
It makes gambling on animal fighting ventures unlawful and explicitly includes gambling tied to broadcast events, broadening liability to remote wagering.
The statute bars use of the postal service or other interstate instrumentalities to transport roosters, directly targeting cross‑border trafficking via carriers.
Private citizens may bring civil suits after providing 60 days’ notice; courts may impose fines up to $5,000 per violation and award attorneys’ fees and expert costs.
For violations of the sponsorship/exhibition prohibition, the Secretary may seek seizure and forfeiture of real property (including leasehold interests) used to commit or facilitate the violation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'FIGHT Act of 2025'
Gives the statute its public name; procedural but signals legislative focus. Useful for regulatory references, but has no operative legal impact on compliance or enforcement.
Statutory definition of 'rooster'
Amends the definitions section of the Animal Welfare Act to add a single, objective definition: a rooster is any male Gallus domesticus older than six months. That definition closes a potential gap in enforcement where species or age distinctions could be contested; practitioners should note the age cutoff when classifying animals for transport, sale, or exhibition.
Prohibitions on sponsoring, exhibiting, attendance, and gambling
Rewrites the statutory header and subdivides the prior language to make distinct offenses: knowingly sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in a fighting venture; causing someone under 16 to attend; and gambling on an animal fighting venture. The gambling prohibition explicitly includes in‑person and broadcast events, which extends legal risk to entities that facilitate broadcasts or remote wagering tied to fights.
Prohibition on using mail or interstate instrumentalities to transport roosters
Modifies the transportation/mailing subsection to add transporting a rooster to the list of prohibited uses of postal or interstate channels. Practically, this brings shippers and carriers into the scope of the statute and aligns the Animal Welfare Act with existing nonmailable provisions, increasing the compliance obligations for commercial and private shippers.
Investigations, civil citizen suits, fines, and property seizure
Expands enforcement: the Secretary retains investigative authority and may obtain warrants and forfeiture, but the provision creates an express private‑right‑of‑action with procedural requirements (60‑day notice) and limits (no suit where the Secretary or U.S. is already litigating). The provision caps civil fines at $5,000 per violation, permits award of litigation costs and fees, and authorizes seizure and forfeiture of real property and leasehold interests used to commit or facilitate a sponsorship/exhibition violation — a sweeping civil remedy aimed at disrupting the physical infrastructure of animal fighting.
Conflict clause and Postal Code amendment
Adjusts the conflict‑with‑state‑law language to preserve state/local rules unless they directly and irreconcilably conflict with the Act, and amends 39 U.S.C. 3001(a) to list the revised Animal Welfare Act provision among nonmailable items. These are drafting fixes with operational effect: carriers and state authorities will need to reconcile enforcement with the federal mailing ban.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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
- Animal‑welfare organizations — gain a formal private‑right‑of‑action (after 60 days' notice), access to attorney’s fees, and a statutory definition to support enforcement and litigation.
- Children and families in communities where animal fighting occurs — benefit from the explicit prohibition on causing individuals under 16 to attend, potentially reducing exposure to violent events.
- Federal and state law enforcement — receive clearer statutory language and a property‑forfeiture remedy that targets venues and infrastructure used for fights, enhancing disruption tools.
Who Bears the Cost
- Event organizers and bettors involved in animal fighting — risk civil fines, criminal enforcement, and loss of property used to host fights, plus exposure for facilitating broadcast wagering.
- Shippers, carriers, and mail processors that transport animals — face compliance burdens and potential enforcement risk because transporting roosters becomes a prohibited interstate/mail activity.
- Owners and lessors of property used (even partly) to facilitate fights — could face seizure or forfeiture of real property, creating substantial civil exposure and potential loss of business premises.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between strengthening enforcement against animal fighting (by adding private suits, fines, and property forfeiture) and the risk of overbroad civil remedies and compliance burdens that sweep in peripheral actors — carriers, property owners, and digital platforms — who may have limited intent to facilitate wrongdoing but substantial exposure under broad statutory language.
The bill packs significant enforcement tools into relatively terse statutory language, which raises several implementation and legal questions. First, the private‑suit mechanism requires 60 days' notice to the Secretary and local law enforcement, but does not specify how the Secretary must respond during that period; the statute also bars suits if the Secretary or the United States is already prosecuting the same conduct, a fact‑intensive determination that will generate litigation over what counts as the "same" alleged violation.
Second, the property seizure language is broad — it permits seizure of the whole lot or tract and leasehold interests used to facilitate violations — but the bill does not add procedural safeguards beyond existing forfeiture law. That creates potential due‑process friction points and practical disputes about what degree of involvement in a violation exposes a property to forfeiture (owner vs. tenant vs. transient use).
Third, the transport prohibition and insertion into the nonmailable statute implicate commercial carriers and interstate commerce. Carriers will need operational guidance about how to identify roosters, verify age (six‑month cutoff), and handle suspected shipments without running afoul of carrier obligations and civil liability.
Finally, expanding the gambling prohibition to include broadcast events imports questions about intermediaries (platforms, streaming services, payment processors): are they providers of content, facilitators of wagering, or both? Absent implementing regulations, those intermediaries could face uncertainty about when their actions cross the line from protected expression or hosting into unlawful facilitation of animal‑fighting gambling.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.