SHELBYVILLE, Tenn. — A decisive moment for the Tennessee Walking Horse industry is approaching in Gould v. USDA, where the central fight has shifted from whether federal regulators overstepped their authority to how broadly the court’s ruling should reshape enforcement of the Horse Protection Act.
Notably, much of the underlying dispute on the legality of the rules has already been resolved between the parties. Through a Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a proposed order filed with the court, both the plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have agreed to adopt the Courts reasoning and legal conclusions on the Scar Rule, No-Showback Rule and current inspection procedures.
That alignment underscores a critical reality: The primary disagreement now is not over whether the rules are lawful, but whether they should remain in place for the industry at large.
In their brief on the scope of relief, filed through attorneys at Torridon Law, plaintiffs Tom Gould, Ann Mills and the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association argue that established Fifth Circuit precedent leaves little room for discussion.
They contend that when a federal court determines agency action is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, vacatur is the default remedy — meaning the rules themselves must be set aside, not merely their application in isolated cases.
According to the plaintiffs, anything less would create confusion and instability across the industry. Limiting relief to only the named parties, they argue, would result in a fragmented system where different rules apply to different shows, trainers and owners — an outcome they describe as unworkable for a national industry.
They also point to USDA’s own conduct following the court’s preliminary injunction, noting the agency voluntarily halted enforcement of the challenged rules across the industry rather than attempting to apply them selectively.
In the plaintiffs’ view, that decision demonstrates both the practical necessity and legal appropriateness of uniform relief.
Humane World for Animals, however, is urging the court to take a sharply different approach.
In its amicus brief filed April 28, the organization argues that the plaintiffs are attempting to leverage a case involving specific disqualifications into a broader effort to dismantle long-standing regulations.
Humane World contends that any direct challenge to the rules themselves is time-barred under the Administrative Procedure Act, emphasizing that the regulations have been in place for years and cannot now be invalidated wholesale. This was previously raised by USDA and the court rejected this argument.
Under that reasoning, the group argues the court should limit any remedy strictly to the individual disqualifications at issue, leaving the broader regulatory framework intact.
But plaintiffs maintain that position ignores both the court’s prior findings and binding precedent on remedies under the APA, which they argue does not allow courts to leave unlawful rules on the books.
For industry stakeholders, the distinction is significant.
A ruling adopting the plaintiffs’ position would bring clarity and uniformity, ensuring that all trainers, owners and shows operate under the same legal framework. By contrast, the narrower approach urged by the USDA and Humane World could create uncertainty by allowing rules already deemed unlawful to continue applying to others across the industry.
With both sides now fully briefed, the court’s decision on the scope of relief will likely determine not only the outcome of this case, but also the immediate future of HPA enforcement nationwide.