Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to add a definition of “rooster” (male Gallus domesticus older than 6 months) and to expand prohibitions and enforcement tools relating to animal fighting ventures (commonly cockfighting). It makes it unlawful to sponsor, exhibit, attend (or cause a person under 16 to attend), or gamble on an animal fighting venture, including in-person or broadcast wagering.
Scope and application of the transport/nonmailable provision (whether it will affect lawful poultry commerce or only trafficking for fighting).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly implements several concrete prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms but is unevenly constructed in drafting clarity, fiscal acknowledgment, and procedural detail.
This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to add a definition of “rooster” (male Gallus domesticus older than 6 months) and to expand prohibitions and enforcement tools relating to animal fighting ventures (commonly cockfighting).
It makes it unlawful to sponsor, exhibit, attend (or cause a person under 16 to attend), or gamble on an animal fighting venture, including in-person or broadcast wagering.
The bill expands prohibitions on using the Postal Service or other interstate instrumentalities to transport roosters, creates a citizen-suit remedy allowing private parties to seek injunctions and fines (up to $5,000 per violation) after 60 days’ notice, authorizes seizure of real property used to facilitate certain violations, and preserves nonpreemption of compatible state/local laws.
On content alone, the bill addresses a narrowly defined and generally unpopular activity (animal fighting), which favors passage. However, its expansion of enforcement mechanisms—private civil suits, monetary fines, and seizure of real property—raises civil‑liberties and federalism concerns and could invite legal challenge. The lack of strong compromise features or explicit implementation funding reduces its smoothness through the more deliberative chamber, lowering overall prospects relative to a simpler, purely criminal update.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly implements several concrete prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms but is unevenly constructed in drafting clarity, fiscal acknowledgment, and procedural detail.
Scope and application of the transport/nonmailable provision (whether it will affect lawful poultry commerce or only trafficking for fighting).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and application of the transport/nonmailable provision (whether it will affect lawful poultry commerce or only trafficking for fighting).
This persona would generally view the bill positively as a bipartisan step to curb animal cruelty, illegal gambling, and youth exposure to violent animal fighting.
They would welcome the tightened definition and explicit gambling prohibition and likely see citizen suits as a useful enforcement backstop when agencies under-enforce.
They will be attentive to civil liberties and equity concerns around property seizure and private litigation but overall see the public-interest rationale as strong.
This persona would view the bill as a generally reasonable, bipartisan update to curb animal cruelty and related illegal gambling, but would be attentive to legal clarity, costs, and federal-state balance.
They would welcome clearer prohibitions and tools to address interstate aspects of animal fighting, yet push for careful limits on private litigation and on property forfeiture to avoid unintended consequences.
Overall they would be open to the bill if technical ambiguities and due-process concerns are addressed.
This persona would generally support measures against animal cruelty but is likely skeptical of expanding federal powers, especially broad civil remedies and property forfeiture provisions.
They would be concerned that the bill federalizes what some states already handle, that citizen suits create litigation incentives, and that seizure of entire properties is an overbroad sanction that risks infringing property rights.
They would also worry that the transport/nonmailable language could interfere with interstate commerce and legitimate agricultural activities without clear intent standards or exemptions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill addresses a narrowly defined and generally unpopular activity (animal fighting), which favors passage. However, its expansion of enforcement mechanisms—private civil suits, monetary fines, and seizure of real property—raises civil‑liberties and federalism concerns and could invite legal challenge. The lack of strong compromise features or explicit implementation funding reduces its smoothness through the more deliberative chamber, lowering overall prospects relative to a simpler, purely criminal update.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and application of the transport/nonmailable provision (whether it will affect lawful poultry commerce or only trafficking for fighti…
On content alone, the bill addresses a narrowly defined and generally unpopular activity (animal fighting), which favors passage. However,…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly implements several concrete prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms but is unevenly constructed in drafting clarity,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.