In an order dated December 13, 2013, a copy of which can be downloaded here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal filed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups. The motion sought to halt horse slaughter operations at three U.S. plants pending the final resolution of the animal rights groups’ appeal.

The HSUS and other animal rights groups had originally filed suit in New Mexico federal court seeking to permanently enjoin officials from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) from carrying out federal meat inspections at three horse slaughter facilities. The district court entered a temporary restraining order that halted slaughter operations while the merits of the case could be decided. Ultimately, the district court rejected the arguments of the animal rights groups, denied their request for permanent injunctive relief, and dismissed their case with prejudice.

The animal rights groups appealed the case to the 10th Circuit court of appeals, and sought an emergency injunction staying horse slaughter operations until the appeal could be heard. The 10th Circuit denied the animal rights groups’ motion, holding that the animal rights groups failed to establish a likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. 

Horse slaughter operations may now commence under the trial court’s decision, even though the merits of that decision are currently being considered by the 10th Circuit. Operations may continue indefinitely unless and until the 10th Circuit, after considering full merits briefing and oral argument, ultimately ends up siding with the animal rights groups.

Related Posts:

Humane Society, et al File Appeal after Federal Judge Dismisses Horse Slaughter Suit

Federal Court Blocks Horse Slaughter at Two Plants

Case Information: Front Range Equine Rescue, et al v. Tom Vilsack, et al, Cause No. 1:13-cv-00639-MCA-RHS (D.N.M. Nov. 1, 2013); Front Range Equine Rescue, et al v. Tom Vilsack, et al, Cause No. 13-2187 (10th Cir.)

On August 12, 2013, an evidentiary hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and for injunctive relief that would require the AQHA to register clones and their offspring. 

Following the hearing, U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson informed counsel that she would grant an injunction requiring the AQHA to register horses produced by cloning and their offspring.

On August 14, 2013, the court entered an order (which can be accessed here) setting forth specific changes and additions to AQHA rules and regulations, which, according to the order, the judge is considering for inclusion in the injunction. The order requires that any objections to the proposed rule changes be submitted by noon on August 19, 2013.

The court has not yet ruled on Plaintiffs’ request for nearly $900,000 in attorneys’ fees. The court ordered the Plaintiffs to furnish their billing statements to AQHA, and also ordered AQHA to file any objection to the request for attorney’s fees, by August 14, 2013. A copy of AQHA’s objection to Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, filed yesterday, can be found here.  

AQHA’s primary objection to Plaintiffs’ fee request is the fact that the jury did not award any damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had sought $5.7 million in damages and sought to treble those damages under the antitrust laws for a total of $17.1 million. However, the jury awarded Plaintiffs zero damages.

At this point, the court has not yet entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. According to this press release, AQHA will file a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law after entry of final judgment. In that motion, AQHA will request that the Court enter a take nothing judgment in favor of AQHA based on the fact that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence. Should the court not grant AQHA’s motion, AQHA will file a notice of appeal thereby starting the appellate process.

Case Information: Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture, et al v. American Quarter Horse Association; Cause No. 2:12-CV-00103-J in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Amarillo Division)

Related Posts:

Federal Jury Rules Against AQHA in Cloning Suit

Federal Lawsuit Alleges AQHA Cloned Horse Registration Policy Violates Antitrust Law

Today, a 10-person jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division ruled that AQHA Rule REG106.1, which prohibits the registration of cloned horses and their offspring in AQHA’s breed registry, violates federal and state anti-trust laws. The jury awarded no damages.

In a statement published today on AQHA’s website, AQHA Executive Vice President Don Treadway, Jr. said,

When individuals with shared interests, goals and values come together to form a voluntary association to serve a common purpose, the members have a right to determine the rules for their association. The wisdom of our membership –which is largely not in favor of the registration of clones and their offspring—has not been upheld by this verdict.

Whether nor not clones will be able to be registered with the AQHA in the foreseeable future is still up in the air. According to AQHA President Johne Dobbs,

We will meet with our legal counsel and executive committee regarding our appeal options in continuing to fight for our members’ rights and announce our decision in that regard in the near future.

The plainitffs in the case have requested injunctive relief, in which they have asked the court to order the AQHA to register their cloned horses.  They have also requested that the court order the AQHA to pay at least a portion of their legal fees.  A hearing on the injunctive relief and fees request has not yet been held.  The jury’s verdict has not been reduced to a final judgment, nor has the court issued an opinion in the case at this time.  

Case InformationAbraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture, et al v. American Quarter Horse Association; Cause No. 2:12-CV-00103-J in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Amarillo Division)

Related Post

Federal Lawsuit Alleges AQHA Cloned Horse Registration Policy Violates Antitrust Law

On December 15, 2011, the American Horse Council (AHC) issued a news release publicizing its opposition to the Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed child labor regulations concerning children working on farms because of its potential negative impacts on the horse community. 

The AHC was organized in 1969 to represent the horse industry in Washington before Congress and the federal regulatory agencies.  It is a non-profit corporation that represents all segments of the equine industry.

According to the AHC, the proposed rule would effectively bar minors under the age of 16 from working in most capacities in agriculture, especially around horses and other livestock.

On November 30, 2011, the AHC filed comments with the DOL expressing its concerns with the proposed rule.  A link to the AHC’s full comments can be found here

According to the AHC:

The proposed rule would expand the number and scope of Hazardous Occupation Orders (HOs) to such an extent that young people not working on a farm or ranch owned by their parents would be precluded from working in agriculture.  The proposed rule would prohibit herding livestock on horseback or foot in confined spaces such as pens and corrals.  Furthermore, the DOL would prohibited youth from engaging or assisting in almost all common animal husbandry practices, such as branding, breeding, dehorning, vaccinating, castrating livestock, or treating sick or injured animals including horses.  All these activities combined represent a great deal of the work performed in association with livestock.”  

The proposed DOL rule does include an exemption for children working on farms and ranches owned by their parents, but the AHC believes this exemption is too narrow in scope:

The AHC does not believe the proposed rule recognizes the reality that many family farms and ranches are held as LLCs or partnerships with other family members.  We believe there is no reason to believe it has ever been the intent of Congress to excluded farms owned by two siblings or multiple generations of a family from the parental exemption.  Doing so would impact thousands of family farms and ranches and unnecessarily deprive young people of the opportunity to work on a family farm or ranch and all the benefits associated with such work…”

Texas Farm Bureau has also recently published these blog posts featuring the concerns of family farmers who believe the proposed rule would rob many children of the valuable lessons that they could learn working in agriculture and around livestock:

DOL Could Change the Value of Hard Work

New Rules Robbing Our Kids?

In an age where most kids in the United States spend most of their free time in front of a TV set, an I-Pad or a computer, it is hard for me to imagine that so many kids are getting hurt working on farms that a new federal law is required to protect them from “exploitation”.  Do any of you readers know what the real motivation behind this proposed rule really is?  Please feel free to leave your ideas in the comments section.

In next week’s post, I’ll cover the most significant legal developments of 2011 that affect Texas horse owners.  I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas and safe travels this weekend!

We’ve all heard accounts that horse thieves have, in the past, been sentenced to death by courts in Texas or legally hanged by vigilantes.  The demise of Jake and his compatriots in the movie Lonesome Dove is a depiction of one such vigilante hanging in Texas.  All kidding aside, verifiable accounts of capital punishment for horse theft (both after a trial and by vigilantes) come not only from Texas, but also from other U.S. states and even other from other countries.  

Photo: Per Wikipedia, this photo is of a horse thief’s hanging in Oregon, circa 1900 [Source

According to a BBC news story from May 2011, some folks in Scotland even reenacted the events surrounding the 1811 hanging of a fellow named George Watson for horse theft.  Watson was described in the BBC article as a “tinker-traveller” who made off with a “distinctive grey Clydesdale mare” belonging to a man who offered shelter to Watson and his family.  Watson is alleged to be the last man hanged in Scotland for horse theft.

Urban legend has it that horse thieves can still be hanged or sentenced to death in Texas.  But unfortunately for those who still wish to see horse thieves put to death, horse thievery is no longer a capital felony in Texas.  Under Texas Penal Code Section 31.03(e), horse theft is a third-degree felony (2 to 10 years in prison) if the value of the horses stolen in a single transaction is less than $100,000.  Horse theft in Texas is punishable as a second degree felony (2 to 20 years in prison) if the horses stolen in a single transaction are worth $100,000 to $199,999, and a first degree felony (5 to 99 years in prison) if the horses stolen in a single transaction are worth $200,000 or more.  See also Chapter 12 of the Texas Penal Code

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana, the power of any U.S. state to impose the death penalty against an individual for committing a crime that did not result in the death of a human victim is now limited to crimes against the state (i.e., espionage, treason).

But vigilante justice for horse thieves is not completely dead in Texas.  As discussed previously, there are still circumstances under which a person in Texas could legally shoot or otherwise kill a horse thief if the person, for example, is a witness to horse theft in progress and the circumstances warrant the use of lethal force.  See these prior posts:

When is it Legal to Shoot a Trespasser?

How to Deal With Trespassers on Your Property

Facts revealed in the recent Jaci Rae Jackson case may cause some to wish capital punishment were still available for horse theft.  As you have probably read by now, Jackson is a now 19 year-old Southern Arkansas University student who was charged this week with a number of felonies in Arkansas and Oklahoma for the theft of 5 college rodeo horses and a horse trailer.  Jackson cannot (if convicted) be sentenced to death for her actions.  Ms. Jackson has also been charged with related post-theft crimes which, according to reports, include allegedly participating in the killing and dismemberment of one stolen horse, and tying the 4 others to trees without sufficient food or water.  Ms. Jackson’s arraignment is expected to occur on December 15, 2011.

Photo: Jaci Rae Jackson [Source

Apropos, how can we all take steps to prevent the theft of our horses and trailers and make sure thieves are brought to justice?  Dr. Pete Gibbs, Texas A & M University professor and Extension Horse Specialist, published an informative article entitled “15 Steps to Minimizing Theft of Horses and Equipment”, which can be downloaded here.  

Pigs are flying, or they must be somewhere in the world. President Barack Obama (while campaigning for his second term in office, I might add) has signed a bill essentially re-legalizing horse slaughter, and PETA is happy about it!  Had you told me this a couple of weeks ago, I would have thought these events as likely an Occupy Wall Street protester taking an investment banking job at Goldman Sachs.

The recent bill reinstituting federal funding for horse slaughter plant inspections has been covered ad nauseam in a number of news stories, so I won’t belabor the details.  It is important to note at the outset that there was never a federal law "banning" horse slaughter in the U.S.  In a nutshell, there was law prohibiting federal funding of USDA horse meat inspections put in place in 2006, and that law esentially ended horse slaughter for human consumption in the U.S.  The 2006 "USDA defunding" provision was lifted on November 18, 2011 as part of a Congressional bill signed by President Obama. As a result, horse slaughter plants are already being considered several states and may be operational in 30 to 90 days. But plants specifically designed for horse slaughter cannot be developed in Texas, California, Illinois and Oklahoma, where state laws specifically prohibit horse slaughter plant operations. For more information, see this article.

But the real news story, to me, is the astounding fact that PETA believes resuming horse slaughter in the U.S. will reduce overall horse suffering, and supports the move. Yes, we’re talking about PETA–the same, often controversial animal rights group known for campaigns like “fur is murder” and the lawsuit filed against Sea World for "enslaving" killer whales. 

In a Christian Science Monitor interview, PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk said PETA believes the United States never should have banned domestic horse slaughter because “the amount of suffering that it created exceeded the amount of suffering it was designed to stop.” 

According to the Christian Science Monitor article, “PETA says the optimal solution is to ban both consumption slaughter and the export of horses, but it supports reintroducing horse slaughterhouses in the U.S., especially if accompanied by a ban on exporting any horses at all to other countries.” Really? A ban on exporting any horses at all to other countries? Does anyone know if PETA really proposes that we make it illegal to export any horse to any country outside the U.S., for any purpose? If so, how would this possibly work and what would it do to our horse industry? 

These questions aside, at least proponents of horse slaughter can be glad that for once, an association like PETA agrees with them. 

Compare PETA’s position to that of Forbes contributor Vickery Eckhoff, who blasts the Thoroughbred industry in an article this week for allegedly being “silent” with respect to the fate of ex-race horses that end up being slaughtered (and tortured in the process, according to Ms. Eckhoff). 

As an aside, it should be noted that many Thoroughbred racing industry associations are members and sponsors of the Unwanted Horse Coalition (UHC), whose goal it is to reduce the numbers of unwanted horses in the U.S. so that fewer end up being slaughtered…or worse (yes, I consider many fates worse than slaughter, such as dying of starvation, dehydration, or illness in the back pasture). For a list of the current member associations of the UHC, click here.

Ms. Eckhoff, like many in the “anti-slaughter” camp, believes horse slaughter should be banned because is inherently cruel and abusive and it cannot be made humane, even if it is done in accordance with USDA regulations.  Anti-slaughter groups and individuals often place the blame on breeders, and urge the government or others to penalize people for over-breeding instead of allowing horses to be slaughtered. How would this be done, I wonder, and at what cost? And is there really no way a horse slaughter facility can be designed to make the slaughter process as humane for horses as it is for other livestock? I welcome your thoughts.

Next Wednesday (November 9, 2011) the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a case where the main issue is States’ rights to impose their own regulations on federally-inspected slaughterhouses. The case is National Meat Association v. Harris (Docket No. 10-244). Though the case involves swine instead of horses, the Court’s decision might ultimately affect the horse slaughter debate currently being waged in Congress.

The issue before the Court is whether a state law in California requiring all slaughterhouses to “immediately euthanize” any nonambulatory animal on its premises is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The National Meat case deals with a California law governing slaughterhouses in that state that was passed in 2008, after the Humane Society of the United States released a video of so-called “downer cows” being pushed with a forklift, kicked, electrocuted, and dragged with chains at a slaughterhouse.

If the Court ultimately finds that California (and, presumably, all other states) can impose its own regulations on slaughterhouses to which the FMIA applies within their respective states, this might ultimately affect the current battle over horse slaughter being waged in the United States. An interesting question raised by this case, in my mind, is this:

What if one or more states were to enact laws that made illegal the so-called ‘evils’ of slaughter that opponents of horse processing find so unsavory? Would the opponents of horse slaughter be opposed to the humane processing of horses in those states?"

It’s an interesting question, and I’m torn. While I generally don’t like to see new red tape and new regulations unduly imposed on any industry, I tend to think that most issues such as this are best dealt with on the state level. If the Supreme Court finds that states can, in fact, impose their own laws on federally-inspected slaughterhouses, I am somewhat encouraged that this might ultimately provide vehicle whereby a “win-win” resolution of the horse slaughter battle may be reached.  If humane horse slaughter can be reintroduced in the United States, many horse industry groups believe that that this would have a positive economic impact on the overall horse industry.

Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe

Some horse breeders, trainers, and consignors who are in the business of selling horses advertise “exchange policies” on their websites. The typical exchange policy contains language promising that a buyer can exchange a horse purchased from the seller for another horse owned by the seller of the same or lesser value within ___ days of the sale. Posting an exchange policy of this nature on the Internet is not a good idea, in my opinion.

Don’t get me wrong–good customer service is paramount to a seller’s reputation. Sellers can surely offer a buyer an exchange horse if a particular situation warrants it and a suitable exchange horse is available. But so much can go wrong if a seller offers each and every buyer the “right” to exchange a purchased horse. For instance:

1)         Some buyers do not get a pre-purchase exam. Even for buyers who do get a pre-purchase exam, they do not check for every malady, disease, or infirmity due to the expense involved. This is problematic when an exchange has been offered. It can be very difficult to tell whether the horse is returned in the same or better condition as when he left the seller’s property.

2)         Exchange policies may work great for retailers where there is price tag on each item in the store and the same items can be found on-line or in other stores. But establishing the value of the exchange horse can be difficult. The seller’s asking price is not always the horse’s fair market value. Reasonable minds can differ as to the value of a horse. Even professional equine appraisers may disagree. 

3)         A seller may not have an exchange horse that possesses all the same qualities as the original horse within the stated time frame. This leads to a lot of confusion. Does the buyer have to keep the horse until the seller obtains a suitable replacement? Does the seller have to keep and feed the buyer’s horse until a suitable replacement has been obtained by the seller? How long will it take the seller to find a suitable replacement?

4)         If a buyer thinks he can simply return the horse for an exchange after 30 days if it doesn’t work out, he may be encouraged to purchase a horse without first inspecting it or spending the money to have a thorough veterinary examination done. This is problematic for several reasons. First, as discussed above, a seller who has offered an exchange policy cannot establish that the horse is being returned in the same condition if no thorough pre-purchase exam was done. Further, a buyer may come back to seller after the exchange policy has expired and demand a refund or exchange because the horse has a soundness or health issue. The presence or absence of a pre-existing condition is then hard to prove because no pre-purchase examination was done.

Due to all of these issues, an exchange policy on horses cannot function as simply as a similar policy offered on household goods sold by Home Depot, Target, and other retailers. Instead of offering a blanket exchange policy on the Internet, sellers should take an “all sales are final” approach and encourage all buyers to get a thorough pre-purchase exam and to inspect the horse prior to purchase in person or via an agent. Taking this approach does not prevent sellers from providing an exchange horse after the fact where the circumstances warrant it. 

Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe

The issue of horse slaughter is on my mind today after reading a news story about the introduction of a U.S. Senate bill proposing the recommencement of horse meat inspection funding.  That’s when I poked around on the Internet a bit and found the "Haters List".

In case you haven’t seen it, the blog Wild Horse Haters & Horse Slaughter Promoters published a lengthy list of horse hatin’ people and groups (i.e. opponents of the horse slaughter ban in the U.S., according to the blog’s publishers) so that the public can boycott them, their members, and their services.

A link to the Haters List can be found here.  The Haters List includes the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) and just about every major U.S. horse association, cattle association, and farm association.

Note:  the publisher(s) of the Haters List and the blog on which is appears remain(s) anonymous.

I am a life member of two associations on the Haters List: the American Paint Horse Association and the American Quarter Horse Association.  What about you?

Milt Toby, a colleague of mine in Kentucky, did a blog post a while ago about how the issue of horse slaughter has a way of dividing people. But can we draw general lines to determine who, in general, is in favor of laws allowing for the processing of horse meat in the U.S. versus who is against such laws? 

Upon review of the Haters List, it would seem to me that in general, those who support humane horse processing in the United States are those who, either directly or indirectly, are in the horse business.  This includes the AAEP, a national group of equine veterinarians whose mission includes "meticulous concern for the health and welfare of the horse". 

There are of course others who support horse processing in the U.S. who aren’t directly or indirectly in the horse business. One example is Fort Worth Star Telegram journalist Bob Ray Sanders.  Mr. Sanders’s recent editorial entitled “Congress Should Revisit Ban on Horse Slaughter” cites evidence from the recent Government Accountability Office report.

And surely there are some in the “horse business” who are in favor of government bans on processing horse meat in the U.S.

But assuming the Haters List is correct, it tells us a lot about where the “line in the sand” is drawn. The Haters List seems to indicate that, in general, most horse businesses and equine veterinarians are in favor of humane horse processing in the United States. Do you agree with this assessment? 

While you ponder this poignant question, I’ll leave you with a quote from Milt Toby’s blog this week:

I think the world would be a better place if horses were not being slaughtered for food anywhere.  I think the same thing about cows and pigs and sheep and chickens and tuna and salmon, and I think it’s logically and morally inconsistent to categorically oppose one without opposing all.  And no, I’m not a vegan."

Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe

**19 SEP 2011 Clarification:  Out of all of my readers, only two individuals read this post and thought that I agreed with the publishers of the "Haters List" and that I don’t believe that any animals should be processed for meat.  Although most people "got" where I was coming from on this issue, this alterted me to the fact that I may need to clarify some things.  I was "poking fun", tongue in cheek, at the anonymous publishers of the "Haters List" because I feel that their methods greatly reduce their credibility.  I was also asking if anyone agreed with me that it seems that most equine vets and most people who are in the horse business support humane processing.  As far as Milt Toby’s quote goes, I read it as saying that Milt believes you can’t categorically oppose humane horse slaughter unless you also oppose the humane slaughter of other animals.**

Happy Thursday on a short Labor Day holiday week, everybody!

Today’s post is a reprint of a "blurb" I did for a colleague’s newsletter this week.  My colleague, Luc Schelstraete, is a top-notch equine attorney practicing in the Netherlands and his firm is called European Equine Lawyers.  Luc and I are pictured below at the "Poco Bueno" brand clothing booth at the Americana 2011 trade show in Augsburg, Germany.

There is no federal law in the United States that uniformly governs documentation and disclosure requirements for horse sales. Only three U.S. states have enacted statutes specific to horse sale documentation and disclosure requirements (California, Florida, and Kentucky).

In general, the horse sale statutes in California, Florida, and Kentucky [click hyperlinks to view statute / rules] all require the following for most private treaty horse sales:

1)         A written bill of sale that is a) signed by both parties, and b) sets forth the purchase price for the horse;

2)         Written disclosure to both purchaser and seller of sales commissions in an amount or value of $500 or more; and

3)         Written consent by both purchaser and seller if someone is acting as a dual agent (i.e. a sales agent for both the buyer and the seller of the horse).

The penalties for failure to comply with these statutes can be harsh (i.e. “treble damages”). Determining which state’s law might apply to an international horse sale involving a buyer or seller in the United States might be tricky for a party based in Europe. 

Due to these concerns, parties to all international horse sales involving a party in the United States would be well advised to at least comply with points 1-3 above and further stipulate in writing which state or country’s law will apply in the event of a dispute arising from the horse sale. 

Parties are further advised to review Florida’s rules carefully if they might apply to a sale. Florida’s rules contain more extensive requirements for horse sale documentation and disclosures than those found in Kentucky and California’s statutes."

As a P.S., don’t forget that tomorrow (September 9) is the deadline to nominate blogs for the "ABA Best 100 Law Blogs" and I’d appreciate your vote.  See my bleg from August 11 for more info!

Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe