FEDERAL LEGISLATION RLA IS OPPOSING
IN THE 119TH CONGRESS:
Fighting Inhumane Gambling and Hight-risk Trafficking (F.I.G.H.T.) Act - S.1454
Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced FIGHT Act in the 119th Congress (2025-2026) claiming to "enhance national animal fighting laws by providing more tools to law enforcement and citizens to curtail cockfighting and dogfighting."
Dog fighting and cock fighting are already illegal, so this deceptive bill is designed to usher in more onerous laws and regulations under the umbrella of the Department of Justice and USDA enforcement.
CONTACT CONGRESS TO OPPOSE The Deceptive F.I.G.H.T. Act
The Fighting Inhumane Gambling and High-risk Trafficking (F.I.G.H.T.) Act, presented under the guise of combating animal cruelty, is a dangerously deceptive piece of federal legislation that threatens the rights and livelihoods of lawful animal owners while trampling on constitutional principles. S.1454, if passed, would unleash a slew of unjust measures that not only target already illegal activities but also open the door to egregious violations of citizens' rights.
At its core, the F.I.G.H.T. Act aims to address the practices of cockfighting and dog fighting. However, the methods proposed to tackle these issues are deeply flawed and constitutionally suspect.
One of the most troubling aspects of the F.I.G.H.T. Act is its propensity to cast a wide net of suspicion over law-abiding animal owners. By proposing measures that could lead to profiling based on the ownership of certain breeds of dogs or roosters, yet this legislation effectively criminalizes responsible animal ownership. This approach not only undermines the presumption of innocence but also fosters an environment of fear and discrimination within communities.
Furthermore, the F.I.G.H.T. Act seeks to expand the powers of law enforcement and government agencies in ways that violate fundamental constitutional principles. By amending Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, the bill would authorize the forfeiture of real property for alleged animal fighting crimes, without due process or proper legal recourse. This legalized civil asset forfeiture not only jeopardizes individuals' property rights but also sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked government overreach.
Moreover, the proposed citizen suit provision included in the F.I.G.H.T. Act raises serious concerns about the erosion of due process and the rule of law. Allowing private individuals or non-governmental organizations to initiate legal action against alleged animal fighters, based on subjective interpretations of the law, undermines the integrity of the judicial system and opens the floodgates to frivolous litigation.
The F.I.G.H.T. Act also fails to distinguish between lawful activities and illegal behavior, unfairly penalizing law-abiding breeders and operators. Provisions such as banning simulcasting and gambling of animal fighting and restricting the shipment of mature roosters through the mail impose unnecessary burdens on legitimate businesses and individuals who adhere to existing regulations.
While the goals of combating animal cruelty are laudable, the means proposed by the F.I.G.H.T. Act are unjust, unconstitutional, and ultimately counterproductive. Instead of addressing the root causes of illegal animal fighting, this legislation risks trampling on the rights of citizens and perpetuating a culture of suspicion and distrust. It is imperative that lawmakers reject the F.I.G.H.T. Act in its current form and pursue more effective, equitable, and constitutionally sound solutions to protect animal welfare.
SEND EMAILS TO YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS OPPOSING THE F.I.G.H.T. ACT
CLICK HERE!
Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced FIGHT Act in the 119th Congress (2025-2026) claiming to "enhance national animal fighting laws by providing more tools to law enforcement and citizens to curtail cockfighting and dogfighting."
Dog fighting and cock fighting are already illegal, so this deceptive bill is designed to usher in more onerous laws and regulations under the umbrella of the Department of Justice and USDA enforcement.
- Attempts to create standing to sue and pursue damages in civil court for the average citizen or NGO.
- Attacks what is already illegal while promoting actions that would harm lawful operators and is intended to challenge/disregard the U.S. Constitution’s 4th and 5th Amendments.
- Allows for authorities to take your land and property, legalizing civil asset forfeiture of not just one’s animals but their physical land and property where the alleged activity took place. Plus, fines and penalties. A complete violation of due process.
- Gives too much authority to USDA or DOJ (or whatever govt agency is tasked with oversight) allowing them to intervene, obtain discovery.
CONTACT CONGRESS TO OPPOSE The Deceptive F.I.G.H.T. Act
The Fighting Inhumane Gambling and High-risk Trafficking (F.I.G.H.T.) Act, presented under the guise of combating animal cruelty, is a dangerously deceptive piece of federal legislation that threatens the rights and livelihoods of lawful animal owners while trampling on constitutional principles. S.1454, if passed, would unleash a slew of unjust measures that not only target already illegal activities but also open the door to egregious violations of citizens' rights.
At its core, the F.I.G.H.T. Act aims to address the practices of cockfighting and dog fighting. However, the methods proposed to tackle these issues are deeply flawed and constitutionally suspect.
One of the most troubling aspects of the F.I.G.H.T. Act is its propensity to cast a wide net of suspicion over law-abiding animal owners. By proposing measures that could lead to profiling based on the ownership of certain breeds of dogs or roosters, yet this legislation effectively criminalizes responsible animal ownership. This approach not only undermines the presumption of innocence but also fosters an environment of fear and discrimination within communities.
Furthermore, the F.I.G.H.T. Act seeks to expand the powers of law enforcement and government agencies in ways that violate fundamental constitutional principles. By amending Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, the bill would authorize the forfeiture of real property for alleged animal fighting crimes, without due process or proper legal recourse. This legalized civil asset forfeiture not only jeopardizes individuals' property rights but also sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked government overreach.
Moreover, the proposed citizen suit provision included in the F.I.G.H.T. Act raises serious concerns about the erosion of due process and the rule of law. Allowing private individuals or non-governmental organizations to initiate legal action against alleged animal fighters, based on subjective interpretations of the law, undermines the integrity of the judicial system and opens the floodgates to frivolous litigation.
The F.I.G.H.T. Act also fails to distinguish between lawful activities and illegal behavior, unfairly penalizing law-abiding breeders and operators. Provisions such as banning simulcasting and gambling of animal fighting and restricting the shipment of mature roosters through the mail impose unnecessary burdens on legitimate businesses and individuals who adhere to existing regulations.
While the goals of combating animal cruelty are laudable, the means proposed by the F.I.G.H.T. Act are unjust, unconstitutional, and ultimately counterproductive. Instead of addressing the root causes of illegal animal fighting, this legislation risks trampling on the rights of citizens and perpetuating a culture of suspicion and distrust. It is imperative that lawmakers reject the F.I.G.H.T. Act in its current form and pursue more effective, equitable, and constitutionally sound solutions to protect animal welfare.
SEND EMAILS TO YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS OPPOSING THE F.I.G.H.T. ACT
CLICK HERE!
Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act – H.R.1477
Sponsor: Rep. David Joyce (R-OH)
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO), Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ),
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Co-Sponsors: House 38
Committee: House Judiciary Committee
Summary: Establishes an Animal Cruelty Crimes Section within the U.S. Department of Justice to coordinate enforcement of animal cruelty laws.
Why We Oppose: Federalizes animal cruelty enforcement, which is best handled by states. Opens the door for federal overreach and prioritizes ideologically driven agendas that threaten lawful animal-related businesses.
Better Care for Animals Act – H.R.3112 / S.1538
Sponsors: Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) / Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Co-Sponsors: House 136 – Senate 23
Committees: House Judiciary Committee / Senate Judiciary Committee
Summary: Creates a new federal felony for causing “serious harm” to an animal under federal law using vague, undefined language.
Why We Oppose: The ambiguous language could be weaponized against compliant farmers, ranchers, breeders, and exhibitors based on activist claims, undermining lawful animal care practices.
Newly Introduced
Introduced: September 10, 2025
Humane Transport of Farmed Animals Act - H.R. 5286
Sponsor: Dina Titus (D-NV)
Co-Sponsors: House 5
Assigned Committees: House Agriculture; House Transportation & Infrastructure
Why We Oppose: If this bill moves forward, it could impose additional federal oversight on livestock transport (especially long-haul transport) via the mechanism to enforce the “Twenty-Eight Hour Law” (which currently exists but is seldom enforced).
For animal enterprise (especially transport operations), this could mean increased paperwork/monitoring, potential audits, record-keeping burdens, more regulatory risk and could raise costs or compliance overhead significantly.
Introduced: July 17, 2025
Hauling Exemptions for Livestock Protection (HELP) Act -H.R. 4500
Sponsor: Jeff Hurd (R-CO-03)
Introduced: July 17, 2025
Co-Sponsors: House 5
Assigned Committees / Subcommittee: House Transportation & Infrastructure; specifically referred to the Subcommittee on Highways & Transit.
Why we support: This bill is more aligned with livestock‐haulers and transport operations (versus welfare regulation). It proposes permanent exemptions from federal Hours-of-Service (HOS) rules and Electronic Logging Device (ELD) requirements for “covered livestock hauling vehicles” (including insects and aquatic animals) when transporting livestock.
For haulers who do long-distance transport of live animals, this could reduce regulatory burden, give more flexibility in operations.
FBI Animal Cruelty Taskforce of 2025 – H.R.3683
Sponsors: Rep. Gottheimer (D-NJ)
Co-Sponsors: House 14
Committee: House Judiciary Committee
Establishes an Animal Cruelty Crimes Taskforce within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for other purposes.
Why We Oppose: While H.R. 3683 aims to curb severe forms of animal cruelty, a goal many support, this legislation would do so by creating a new federal enforcement unit may amount to overreach, inefficient resource use, and mission overload.
FIGHT Act – H.R.3946/S.1454
Bill Title: Fighting Inhumane Gambling and High-Risk Trafficking Act
Sponsors: Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Co-Sponsors: House 96 - Senate 10
Committee: Senate Judiciary Committee
Summary: Expands federal enforcement powers related to animal fighting, including surveillance, investigation, and prosecution authority.
Why We Oppose: While positioned as anti-cruelty, it opens the door to targeting law-abiding poultry breeders and rural animal owners, expanding government reach under the guise of fighting crime.
Goldie’s Act – H.R.349
Sponsor: Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL)
Co-Sponsors: House 77
Committee: House Agriculture Committee
Summary: Mandates more frequent and aggressive USDA inspections, stricter penalties, and animal confiscations under vague care standards.
Why We Oppose: Transforms USDA Animal Care from an education/compliance model to punitive enforcement. Empowers activist complaints and threatens licensees without due process. Would change AWA enforcement so that inspectors must document all violations and remove the current distinction between “direct” (animal welfare) and “indirect” (paperwork/recordkeeping) violations—effectively treating paperwork issues as direct violations under the AWA.
Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act – H.R.1684
Sponsor: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Co-Sponsors: House 204
Committee: House Energy and Commerce Committee
Summary: Bans action devices, pads, and weighted shoes; extends regulation beyond Tennessee Walking Horses; imposes strict penalties.
Why We Oppose: This legislation is based on animal rights ideology, not science. H.R.1684 threatens legitimate equine disciplines and related industries like farriers, feed supply, and tourism. Presumes guilt before innocence.
Puppy Protection Act of 2025 – H.R.2253
Sponsor: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Co-Sponsors to date: House 136
Committee: House Agriculture Committee
Summary: Imposes new regulations on dog breeders including breeding caps, socialization standards, temperature rules, and flooring requirements.
Why Oppose: Impractical and ideologically driven mandates target lawful breeders and limit Americans’ access to responsibly bred dogs.
Save America’s Forgotten Equines (SAFE) Act – H.R.1661/S.775
Sponsor: Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Co-Sponsors: House 184 - Senate 4
Committee: House Energy and Commerce Committee
Summary: Bans horse slaughter in the U.S. and prohibits the transport of horses to slaughter facilities in Canada and Mexico.
Why We Oppose: Eliminates humane options for unwanted horses, leading to abandonment and neglect. Further erodes the struggling horse industry and reduces livestock management tools.
Sponsor: Rep. David Joyce (R-OH)
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO), Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ),
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Co-Sponsors: House 38
Committee: House Judiciary Committee
Summary: Establishes an Animal Cruelty Crimes Section within the U.S. Department of Justice to coordinate enforcement of animal cruelty laws.
Why We Oppose: Federalizes animal cruelty enforcement, which is best handled by states. Opens the door for federal overreach and prioritizes ideologically driven agendas that threaten lawful animal-related businesses.
Better Care for Animals Act – H.R.3112 / S.1538
Sponsors: Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) / Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Co-Sponsors: House 136 – Senate 23
Committees: House Judiciary Committee / Senate Judiciary Committee
Summary: Creates a new federal felony for causing “serious harm” to an animal under federal law using vague, undefined language.
Why We Oppose: The ambiguous language could be weaponized against compliant farmers, ranchers, breeders, and exhibitors based on activist claims, undermining lawful animal care practices.
Newly Introduced
Introduced: September 10, 2025
Humane Transport of Farmed Animals Act - H.R. 5286
Sponsor: Dina Titus (D-NV)
Co-Sponsors: House 5
Assigned Committees: House Agriculture; House Transportation & Infrastructure
Why We Oppose: If this bill moves forward, it could impose additional federal oversight on livestock transport (especially long-haul transport) via the mechanism to enforce the “Twenty-Eight Hour Law” (which currently exists but is seldom enforced).
For animal enterprise (especially transport operations), this could mean increased paperwork/monitoring, potential audits, record-keeping burdens, more regulatory risk and could raise costs or compliance overhead significantly.
Introduced: July 17, 2025
Hauling Exemptions for Livestock Protection (HELP) Act -H.R. 4500
Sponsor: Jeff Hurd (R-CO-03)
Introduced: July 17, 2025
Co-Sponsors: House 5
Assigned Committees / Subcommittee: House Transportation & Infrastructure; specifically referred to the Subcommittee on Highways & Transit.
Why we support: This bill is more aligned with livestock‐haulers and transport operations (versus welfare regulation). It proposes permanent exemptions from federal Hours-of-Service (HOS) rules and Electronic Logging Device (ELD) requirements for “covered livestock hauling vehicles” (including insects and aquatic animals) when transporting livestock.
For haulers who do long-distance transport of live animals, this could reduce regulatory burden, give more flexibility in operations.
FBI Animal Cruelty Taskforce of 2025 – H.R.3683
Sponsors: Rep. Gottheimer (D-NJ)
Co-Sponsors: House 14
Committee: House Judiciary Committee
Establishes an Animal Cruelty Crimes Taskforce within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for other purposes.
Why We Oppose: While H.R. 3683 aims to curb severe forms of animal cruelty, a goal many support, this legislation would do so by creating a new federal enforcement unit may amount to overreach, inefficient resource use, and mission overload.
FIGHT Act – H.R.3946/S.1454
Bill Title: Fighting Inhumane Gambling and High-Risk Trafficking Act
Sponsors: Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Co-Sponsors: House 96 - Senate 10
Committee: Senate Judiciary Committee
Summary: Expands federal enforcement powers related to animal fighting, including surveillance, investigation, and prosecution authority.
Why We Oppose: While positioned as anti-cruelty, it opens the door to targeting law-abiding poultry breeders and rural animal owners, expanding government reach under the guise of fighting crime.
Goldie’s Act – H.R.349
Sponsor: Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL)
Co-Sponsors: House 77
Committee: House Agriculture Committee
Summary: Mandates more frequent and aggressive USDA inspections, stricter penalties, and animal confiscations under vague care standards.
Why We Oppose: Transforms USDA Animal Care from an education/compliance model to punitive enforcement. Empowers activist complaints and threatens licensees without due process. Would change AWA enforcement so that inspectors must document all violations and remove the current distinction between “direct” (animal welfare) and “indirect” (paperwork/recordkeeping) violations—effectively treating paperwork issues as direct violations under the AWA.
Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act – H.R.1684
Sponsor: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Co-Sponsors: House 204
Committee: House Energy and Commerce Committee
Summary: Bans action devices, pads, and weighted shoes; extends regulation beyond Tennessee Walking Horses; imposes strict penalties.
Why We Oppose: This legislation is based on animal rights ideology, not science. H.R.1684 threatens legitimate equine disciplines and related industries like farriers, feed supply, and tourism. Presumes guilt before innocence.
Puppy Protection Act of 2025 – H.R.2253
Sponsor: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Co-Sponsors to date: House 136
Committee: House Agriculture Committee
Summary: Imposes new regulations on dog breeders including breeding caps, socialization standards, temperature rules, and flooring requirements.
Why Oppose: Impractical and ideologically driven mandates target lawful breeders and limit Americans’ access to responsibly bred dogs.
Save America’s Forgotten Equines (SAFE) Act – H.R.1661/S.775
Sponsor: Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Co-Sponsors: House 184 - Senate 4
Committee: House Energy and Commerce Committee
Summary: Bans horse slaughter in the U.S. and prohibits the transport of horses to slaughter facilities in Canada and Mexico.
Why We Oppose: Eliminates humane options for unwanted horses, leading to abandonment and neglect. Further erodes the struggling horse industry and reduces livestock management tools.