The Greyhound Protection Act of 2025 amends the Animal Welfare Act to make it a federal crime to engage in commercial greyhound racing, live lure training, and open field coursing when those activities involve interstate or foreign commerce. The bill also outlaws simulcast betting on greyhound races and criminalizes selling, transporting, or receiving greyhounds for those purposes.
The measure attaches prison and fine penalties, empowers the Secretary to investigate violations (with law enforcement assistance), adds hares to the Act's definition of animal, and phases the ban in for conduct occurring on or after October 1, 2027. For stakeholders in racing, wagering, breeding, training, and animal welfare, the bill converts a largely state-level movement into a concrete federal prohibition with criminal enforcement tools and a narrowly defined jurisdictional hook—interstate or foreign commerce.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new section to the Animal Welfare Act making it unlawful to knowingly engage in commercial greyhound racing, live lure training, or open field coursing tied to interstate or foreign commerce; to conduct racing where betting occurs; to use live animal bait; to facilitate simulcast wagering across state or national lines; and to sell, transport, or receive greyhounds for those purposes. It authorizes criminal penalties (fines and up to 7 years imprisonment) and Secretary-led investigations.
Who It Affects
Racetrack owners and operators, breeders, trainers, transporters, online and simulcast wagering platforms, and clubs that host coursing or live-lure training—to the extent their activities cross state lines or involve betting. Federal and state law enforcement and the USDA will have investigative and enforcement roles. Owners and organizations moving greyhounds interstate for non-racing purposes could be implicated if the movement is knowingly for racing.
Why It Matters
The bill federalizes prohibitions that most States already impose and plugs gaps where live-lure training and interstate simulcast wagering persist. It uses the commerce hook to capture betting and interstate movement rather than regulating all canine activities, creating a specific path for criminal enforcement and national uniformity on commercial greyhound events.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new standalone Protection of Greyhounds section into the Animal Welfare Act. It criminalizes five types of conduct: knowingly engaging in commercial greyhound racing, live lure training, or open field coursing when greyhounds are moved in interstate or foreign commerce; holding racing meetings where any betting or wagering occurs; using live (animate) bait in live lure training or coursing; facilitating simulcast betting on greyhound races across state or national lines; and knowingly selling, buying, possessing, training, transporting, delivering, or receiving a greyhound for the purpose of participating in those events.
The statutory language ties federal jurisdiction to interstate or foreign commerce and to the presence of betting in the event, rather than to all greyhound activities.
To enforce the new prohibition, the Secretary (the Animal Welfare Act's enforcement authority) may investigate suspected violations and may enlist the FBI, Department of the Treasury, and state or local agencies under cooperative agreements. The bill makes each violation punishable by fines under the Act, imprisonment for up to seven years, or both, and treats each instance as a separate offense.
The mens rea standard in key provisions is "knowingly," which limits liability to actors who are aware of the purpose for which animals are handled or moved.The bill also amends the Act's animal definition to add "hare," thereby bringing jackrabbits and similar animals explicitly within the statute's reach. Finally, it sets an applicability date for conduct on or after October 1, 2027, and expressly declines to preempt State laws that prohibit gambling or provide animal protections, while preserving the scope of the Interstate Horseracing Act as it relates to horse racing.
Those construction clauses signal congressional intent to leave state prohibitions intact and to avoid altering existing federal horse-racing law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes each violation punishable by a fine (under the Animal Welfare Act), imprisonment for up to 7 years, or both, and treats each instance as a single separate offense.
It criminalizes facilitating simulcast betting or wagering on greyhound races in interstate or foreign commerce—the commerce hook captures online and cross-border wagering.
A person who knowingly sells, buys, possesses, trains, transports, delivers, or receives a greyhound for the purpose of having it participate in commercial racing, live lure training, or open field coursing commits a federal offense.
The statute adds "hare" to the Animal Welfare Act’s definition of animal, explicitly covering jackrabbits and similar species used as live bait.
The law applies only to conduct occurring on or after October 1, 2027, and includes a rule of construction preserving State anti-gambling and animal welfare laws and existing relations under the Interstate Horseracing Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
List of federal prohibitions tied to interstate commerce and betting
This subsection enumerates five separate prohibitions: engaging in commercial greyhound racing, holding races with any betting, conducting open field coursing or live lure training using animate bait, facilitating simulcast wagering in interstate or foreign commerce, and knowingly trafficking greyhounds for those purposes. Practically, Congress uses two jurisdictional levers—interstate or foreign movement of greyhounds and the presence of betting—to bring these activities under federal criminal law rather than regulating every local or private contest.
Investigation authority and interagency cooperation
The Secretary may investigate suspected violations and may enter cooperative agreements with federal agencies (FBI, Treasury) and state/local governments. That language allows the Secretary to tap criminal investigative capacity and financial crime expertise (useful where wagering and online payments are implicated) but stops short of specifying investigative procedures, subpoena power, or resource allocations—implementation will require interagency protocols.
Criminal sanctions and treatment of violations
The bill sets criminal penalties—fines under the Animal Welfare Act and up to 7 years' imprisonment—and clarifies that each instance of violating any of the enumerated prohibitions is a single offense. The statute does not tier penalties by role (owner, operator, bettor) or by harm, nor does it provide a statutory civil enforcement path; enforcement appears primarily criminal.
Definitions of commercial greyhound racing and simulcast
The bill defines 'commercial greyhound racing' specifically as events where betting or wagering on speed or ability occurs, and defines 'simulcast' as simultaneous audio/visual transmissions of races at another location coupled with gambling on results. These definitions anchor the statute's reach to wagering activity and to transmission-based betting models common today, rather than to informal or private greyhound exercise or competition without betting.
Effective date and preservation of state law and horse-racing law
The bill applies to conduct on or after October 1, 2027, allowing a transition window. It also explicitly refrains from preempting State anti-gambling or animal welfare laws and directs that nothing herein alters the Interstate Horseracing Act. Those clauses limit federal-state tension on paper but leave practical coordination questions for enforcement and prosecution.
Expanding statutory coverage to include hares
By inserting 'hare' into the Animal Welfare Act’s statutory definition of 'animal,' Congress brings jackrabbits and similar species squarely under the AWA. That change removes ambiguity about whether regulators can treat such animals as covered when they are used as live lures or bait in coursing and training.
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
- Racing greyhounds: The ban targets commercial uses and live-lure practices that the bill’s findings link to severe injuries and deaths, meaning fewer animals will be exposed to those commercial racing and baiting environments.
- Animals used as live bait (hares and jackrabbits): The explicit addition of 'hare' to the AWA protects species commonly used as live lures from interstate commercial use and trafficking for baiting.
- Animal welfare organizations and veterinarians: Groups and practitioners focused on reducing race-related injuries gain a uniform federal prohibition that supplements patchwork state bans and can support criminal enforcement against interstate commercial activities.
- States with existing bans: States that already prohibit live commercial dog racing get a federal backstop against cross-border or online activities that could undermine state prohibitions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Racetrack operators and owners: Businesses that host greyhound races or maintain wagering operations will face criminal exposure where their activities involve interstate movement or simulcast wagering, and will lose revenue streams tied to greyhound events.
- Breeders, trainers, transporters, and handlers: Persons who sell, move, or train greyhounds for commercial racing or coursing risk criminal penalties if the conduct is knowingly linked to prohibited events; compliance costs will rise for those who previously relied on interstate transport.
- Simulcast and online wagering platforms: Internet and cross-state betting services that transmit race feeds and accept wagers on greyhound races will fall within the statute’s prohibition and may need to block greyhound product or face criminal liability.
- Law enforcement and regulatory agencies: The Secretary and partnering agencies will need to allocate investigative and prosecutorial resources to enforce the new criminal provisions, and states may experience coordination burdens despite the preservation clause.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between advancing animal welfare through a nationwide criminal ban on commercial, interstate greyhound racing and preserving traditional state control over gambling and animal-regulatory matters: the bill solves the problem of cross-border and online wagering that undermines state bans, but in doing so it federalizes criminal enforcement and risks leaving noncommercial, intrastate, or ambiguous conduct in a legal gray zone where intent-based prosecutions and resource allocation become contentious.
The bill uses a commerce-based jurisdictional design that targets interstate movement of greyhounds and interstate/foreign wagering, rather than erecting a flat ban on all greyhound-related activities. That design narrows federal reach—purely intrastate, non-betting contests or private ownership without interstate transport may fall outside federal coverage—while capturing the most commercially significant conduits (simulcast betting and cross-border transfers).
The mens rea requirement of 'knowingly' for trafficking and possession tied to racing reduces overbreadth but will spawn contested fact questions in prosecutions about a defendant's actual knowledge and intent. Prosecutors will have to show that a transported dog was moved 'for purposes' of racing or coursing, not merely that the animal moved and a race occurred.
Operationally, the statute anticipates interagency cooperation but leaves key implementation details open: it does not specify investigative procedures, evidence standards, forfeiture authorities, or how the Secretary should prioritize cases. The criminal penalty is substantial (up to 7 years) and un-tiered, which could create proportionality debates when compared to the range of actors implicated—from corporate wagering platforms to small trainers.
The rule of construction preserves state anti-gambling and animal protections and the Interstate Horseracing Act, but real-world conflicts are possible where state-legal greyhound activities intersect with interstate betting or transport—courts will likely need to resolve where federal criminal reach begins and state regulatory authority ends.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.