This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to raise federal protections around rooster fighting by adding a statutory definition of “rooster,” criminalizing gambling on animal fighting ventures (including broadcast events), and making it unlawful to use interstate instrumentalities—including the mail—to transport roosters for fighting. It also creates a civil enforcement pathway for private parties, authorizes fines and attorney’s-fee awards, and permits seizure of real property used to facilitate violations.
For compliance officers and counsel, the bill threadstogether three enforcement levers: expanded substantive prohibitions, an administrative/federal enforcement backstop, and private litigant enforcement with monetary penalties and sweeping forfeiture authority. The amendment to the postal statute (title 39) is consequential because it treats shipments tied to fighting as nonmailable, imposing an additional carrier-level compliance obligation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a statutory definition of “rooster” and explicitly bans sponsoring, exhibiting, or gambling on animal fighting ventures, including in-person and broadcast events. It extends the Animal Welfare Act’s transport prohibition to roosters and marks related transports as nonmailable under title 39. The bill also creates a private civil-suit mechanism with capped fines, fee-shifting, a mandatory 60-day notice to the USDA, and allows seizure and forfeiture of real property used to facilitate violations.
Who It Affects
Individuals and organizations that organize, promote, or profit from animal fighting (including operators of in-person and broadcast events), couriers and mail carriers that move animals interstate, online platforms that host gambling tied to fights, and private citizens or NGOs who may bring civil suits. The USDA (Secretary) gains investigative responsibilities and potential coordination with federal law enforcement.
Why It Matters
It combines criminal/administrative prohibitions with private enforcement and forfeiture tools, increasing legal and financial risk for organizers and intermediaries. Treating shipments as nonmailable triggers compliance obligations across carriers and may expose intermediaries (platforms, payment processors, shippers) to secondary enforcement pressure.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites parts of the Animal Welfare Act to pull several enforcement threads together. First, it inserts a clear definition of “rooster” (a male Gallus Domesticus older than six months) so prosecutors and regulators have a statutory hook for enforcement involving the common animal at issue in cockfights.
Second, it reshapes section 26 so that sponsoring or exhibiting animals in fighting ventures is plain unlawful activity, and it adds a discrete prohibition on gambling tied to those ventures — the text covers both in-person gambling and bets connected to broadcasted fights.
On transport, the bill expands section 26(c) to ensure interstate instrumentalities cannot be used to move roosters for fighting. That expansion is reinforced by a technical amendment to title 39, which lists the Animal Welfare Act provision among nonmailable matter: shipments related to animal fighting become presumptively nonmailable.
Practically, that means carriers and postal operators face a statutory bar when shipments are intended to further fighting ventures.Enforcement is modular. The Secretary of Agriculture retains investigatory and enforcement authority, with the bill clarifying coordination with other federal agencies, warrant authority, and traditional forfeiture remedies.
Separately, the bill authorizes private civil suits: any person may sue to enjoin violations after giving the Secretary and local law enforcement 60 days’ notice. Courts may impose fines (the statute caps the fine amount), award attorney’s fees and expert costs, and the Attorney General may intervene at the Secretary’s request.
Importantly, the bill also introduces a civil-forfeiture-style power permitting seizure of entire parcels of real property used to facilitate a violation — a broad tool that goes beyond seizing animals or equipment.The statute also clarifies interplay with state law: it does not automatically preempt state, local, or municipal rules except where a direct and irreconcilable conflict exists. Finally, the bill includes modest technical edits to align section headings and cross-references and appends the Animal Welfare Act provision to the category of nonmailable material in title 39, making the postal component enforceable against mail carriers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “rooster” as any male Gallus Domesticus older than six months, creating a specific statutory subject for prosecutions and transport prohibitions.
It makes gambling on animal fighting ventures illegal and explicitly covers both in-person and broadcast events, expanding the scope beyond physical attendance.
A private civil-suit mechanism allows any person to sue to enjoin violations after providing a 60‑day notice to the Secretary and local law enforcement; courts may award attorney’s fees and expert costs.
District courts may impose fines up to $5,000 per violation under suits brought by private parties, and the Attorney General may intervene at the Secretary’s request.
The bill authorizes seizure of all real property (including leasehold interests and improvements) used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation — not limited to animals or equipment — and adds the statute to title 39’s nonmailable list.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the measure the short name “Fighting Inhumane Gambling and High-risk Trafficking Act of 2025” or the “FIGHT Act of 2025.” This is a formal naming provision with no operational effect but signals the bill’s policy focus for sponsors and committees.
Statutory definition of 'rooster'
Amends 7 U.S.C. 2132 to add a new subsection defining rooster as a male Gallus Domesticus older than six months. That single-line insertion narrows prosecutorial ambiguity: enforcement, transport bans, and forfeiture provisions can point to a specific, statutory animal rather than relying on interpretive facts about age or species.
Prohibits sponsoring, exhibiting, and gambling on animal fighting ventures
Rewrites 7 U.S.C. 2156(a) to separate sponsoring/exhibiting and attendance prohibitions and adds an express ban on gambling connected to animal fighting ventures, including bets tied to broadcast events. The language broadens coverage beyond boots-on-the-ground attendees to revenue-generating activities that may be digital or remote, forcing platforms and promoters to reassess compliance.
Extends transport ban and adds nonmailable classification
Modifies section 26(c) to include transporting a rooster among prohibited interstate uses of the postal service or other instrumentalities. The bill then amends 39 U.S.C. 3001(a) to list the Animal Welfare Act provision as nonmailable matter. That dual approach gives regulators two enforcement angles: prohibitions on conducting transports and a mail-disposal/readily enforceable nonmailable classification that carriers must heed.
Investigations, citizen suits, fines, and property seizure; technical corrections
Overhauls 2156(e) to restate the Secretary’s investigation powers, authorize search warrants and forfeiture, and create a civil-citizen suit pathway with a 60‑day pre-suit notice requirement, a jurisdiction provision, a fine cap ($5,000 per violation), fee-shifting discretion for courts, and a bar on citizen suits where the Secretary or U.S. is already prosecuting. It also inserts language allowing seizure of all real property used or intended to be used to facilitate violations—an unusually broad forfeiture tool—and fixes cross-references and a state-law conflict clause.
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
- Animal-welfare organizations and private litigants: The civil-suit mechanism gives NGOs and private parties standing to seek injunctions and recover litigation costs, allowing them to litigate enforcement where federal prosecutors may not prioritize cases.
- Local communities and municipalities: With expanded federal prohibitions and a clear nonmailable classification, localities get additional legal leverage against traveling fights, online streams, and interstate networks that have previously skirted local enforcement.
- USDA and cooperating federal law enforcement: The bill provides clearer statutory language, transport and mail tools, and coordination authority, which may improve investigative precision and interagency cooperation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Organizers, promoters, and bettors in the animal-fighting ecosystem: The prohibition on gambling (including broadcast-linked wagers) and the transport and mail bans increase exposure to fines, civil suits, and criminal prosecution.
- Carriers, shippers, and online platforms: Postal and carrier compliance obligations rise because related shipments are nonmailable; platforms hosting streams or betting interfaces may face secondary enforcement pressure or litigation exposure.
- Property owners and lessees tied to fighting operations: The statutory authority to seize entire parcels of real property used to facilitate violations creates a high civil-risk for owners whose sites are used for fights, even if their direct culpability is disputed.
- Federal agencies (USDA, DOJ) and local law enforcement: Expanded investigatory duties, potential increases in civil suits and forfeiture litigation, and coordination requests will require staff time and possibly additional resources to implement effectively.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between strengthening animal‑welfare enforcement by widening prohibitions and private enforcement tools, and the risk that expansive remedies (broad property forfeiture, nonmailable designations, and fee-shifting incentives) create outsized legal and compliance burdens on intermediaries, property owners, and carriers, potentially producing litigation and constitutional challenges that could undercut the statute’s practical effectiveness.
The bill stitches criminal, civil, administrative, and postal enforcement into a single statutory framework, but that breadth creates implementation and constitutional questions. First, the real-property seizure provision is unusually broad: authorizing forfeiture of whole lots and leasehold interests risks protracted civil-forfeiture litigation and raises due-process and Eighth Amendment proportionality concerns, particularly where the property owner’s culpability is contested or the property serves mixed lawful and unlawful uses.
Second, adding the statute to the nonmailable list places a compliance burden on carriers and postal operators who must police shipments for intent to facilitate fighting; practical detection and evidentiary standards for intent may be thin, producing either over‑blocking of lawful shipments or under-enforcement.
Third, the private-citizen suit vehicle will likely increase litigation volume, which has pros and cons: it fills enforcement gaps where government resources are limited but also risks opportunistic or duplicative suits. The 60‑day notice and the statutory bar where the Secretary or U.S. is already prosecuting partially address that risk, but the text leaves room for strategic filings.
Finally, the scope of “gambling” tied to broadcast events and the interplay with streaming platforms and payment processors is ambiguous; courts and regulators will need to parse when hosting or transmitting content crosses the line into aiding illegal wagering versus protected speech or lawful activity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.