FIGHT Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3946
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Animals
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-12: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-11T23:41:24Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Fighting Inhumane Gambling and High-risk Trafficking Act of 2025 (FIGHT Act of 2025) aims to strengthen federal protections against animal fighting ventures, with a specific focus on cockfighting involving roosters. It amends the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to close loopholes, prohibit related activities like gambling and transportation, and enhance enforcement mechanisms to prevent cruelty to animals.
Key Provisions
- Definition of Rooster: Adds a new term to the AWA defining a "rooster" as any male chicken (Gallus Domesticus species) older than 6 months old.
- Prohibitions on Animal Fighting Activities:
- Bans sponsoring or exhibiting any animal in an animal fighting venture (e.g., organized fights for entertainment or betting).
- Makes it illegal to attend such events or to bring anyone under 16 years old to them.
- Explicitly prohibits gambling on animal fights, whether in-person or via broadcast.
- Transportation Restrictions: Prohibits using the U.S. Postal Service or other interstate carriers (like highways or airways) to transport roosters for fighting purposes, treating it similarly to bans on promoting fights.
- Enforcement Tools:
- Allows the Secretary of Agriculture (who oversees the AWA) to investigate violations, with support from other federal agencies, and issue search warrants.
- Introduces civil citizen suits: Any person can file a lawsuit in federal court to stop (enjoin) violations, with courts able to impose fines up to $5,000 per violation. Plaintiffs must give 60 days' notice to the Secretary and local law enforcement before suing, and suits are blocked if the government is already pursuing the same case.
- Expands seizure authority: Violators of sponsoring or exhibiting bans face forfeiture of real property (e.g., land or buildings) used in the activity, in addition to existing penalties.
- Other Rules: Federal law does not override state or local animal fighting laws unless they directly conflict. Updates postal regulations to explicitly ban mailing items related to animal fights under the AWA.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Expands Section 26 of the AWA to include new bans on gambling, attending events (especially with minors), and transporting roosters, which were not explicitly covered before.
- Adds a private right of action for citizens to sue for injunctions and fines, shifting some enforcement from government agencies to individuals—a major new tool not previously available under the AWA for these violations.
- Broadens forfeiture to include real property (beyond just animals or equipment), increasing penalties for organizers.
- Clarifies that the law works alongside state laws rather than preempting them, and makes technical fixes to postal non-mailability rules.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) gains stronger investigation and seizure powers, potentially increasing workload but improving coordination with other federal entities like the Postal Service. The Attorney General can intervene in citizen suits, aiding federal oversight.
- On Citizens: Empowers individuals and animal welfare advocates to act against violations without relying solely on government action, which could lead to more reported cases and community-level enforcement. However, it may burden courts with additional lawsuits.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic and interstate activities; it does not address imports/exports but could indirectly affect cross-border cockfighting networks if transportation bans are enforced at borders.
- Broader Effects: Aims to reduce animal cruelty in underground fighting rings, potentially decreasing associated risks like disease spread (e.g., avian flu from roosters) and illegal gambling revenues.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Animal Welfare Organizations: Groups like the Humane Society or ASPCA benefit from enhanced tools to combat cockfighting and can participate in or support citizen suits.
- Law Enforcement and Regulators: USDA, local police, and federal agencies (e.g., FBI for interstate aspects) gain authority but face increased responsibilities for investigations and property seizures.
- Cockfighting Participants and Organizers: Breeders, gamblers, and venue owners face stricter bans, fines, and property losses, disrupting an illegal industry estimated to involve thousands of events annually.
- General Public: Citizens, especially families, are protected from exposure to violent events (via minor attendance bans), and animal lovers can now sue directly.
- States and Localities: Their anti-fighting laws are preserved, but they may see more federal involvement in conflicting cases.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The citizen suit provision (similar to those in environmental laws like the Clean Air Act) democratizes enforcement but includes safeguards (e.g., notice periods and government priority) to avoid frivolous lawsuits. Fines and seizures align with existing AWA penalties but expand civil remedies.
- Constitutional Implications: Seizure of real property could raise due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment if not handled with proper hearings, though it follows standard forfeiture procedures. The bans on gambling and attendance are likely constitutional as regulations on cruelty and interstate commerce.
- Political Implications: Bipartisan sponsorship (from over 40 House members across parties) signals broad support for animal welfare, potentially easing passage. It builds on prior AWA updates (e.g., 2007 expansions) without major controversy, though it may face opposition from rural or cultural groups viewing cockfighting as tradition. No direct impact on free speech, as exceptions for advertising are retained.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (147)
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6], Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-1], Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2], Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1], Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1], Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6], Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11], Rep. Webster, Daniel [R-FL-11], Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2], Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5], Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15], Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2], Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1], Rep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8], Rep. Bean, Aaron [R-FL-4], Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3], Rep. McGarvey, Morgan [D-KY-3], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4], Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Sorensen, Eric [D-IL-17], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3], Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28] and 97 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-12: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 2025-06-12: Introduced in House
- 2025-06-12: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Fighting Inhumane Gambling and High-risk Trafficking Act of 2025 — issued 2025-06-12 — PDF (7 pages)