Ceasing Slaughter: Expanding the Legal Protections of Equines

/ Animal Protection / By

Megan Ruzicka1

I. Introduction

Section 12515 of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 prohibits the slaughter, sale, transport, or exportation of dogs and cats for human consumption.2 It also prevents the exportation of these animals to nations where this cruelty persists, as dogs and cats in meat markets are often kept in inhumane conditions where they are deprived of basic necessities before being beaten, boiled, or bled to death.3 However, equines, which include donkeys, horses, mules, and burros, do not enjoy these same protections. They are often packed into trucks without food or water and forced to stand for days while in transit before being gruesomely and painfully slaughtered.4 A study conducted by the American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals and Lake Research Partners concluded that 83% of Americans support the cessation of horse slaughter for human consumption.5

Section 12515 of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 is antiquated in its failure to include equines. This goes against standards set by various states, including but not limited to New Jersey, Texas, and Illinois. This Note argues that the Act should strike the phrase “dogs and cats” and instead insert “dogs, cats, and equines,” with equines including horses and members of the horse family (i.e., donkeys, mules, and burros). Amending the Act will expand the application of federal legal protections to align with those seen at the state level. This will also assist with eliminating the ambiguity over whether equines can be transported through states with bans when destined for slaughter elsewhere. Preventing the slaughter of equines reflects the overwhelming desire of the American people to protect these animals while benefiting both human and equine health. Additionally, for those concerned with what to do with horses that otherwise would have been slaughtered, there are a variety of humane alternative options that allow for the humane treatment of equines.6

 II. The SAFE Act

The Save America’s Forgotten Equines Act (SAFE) was introduced by Senators Bob Menendez and Lindsey Graham in 2023.7 This Act would amend the phrasing of “dogs or cats” in section 12515 of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 to instead be “dogs, cats, or equines.”8 This would effectively prevent the slaughter of all equines in the United States, as well as the exportation of these animals for purposes of slaughter abroad. The Act resulted from the rise in equine exportation abroad for slaughter after horsemeat was made illegal for consumption in the United States.9 

 III. Current Legal Protections

A. State Legislation

Currently, several states have already enacted their own legislation that aligns with the proposed SAFE Act. New Jersey’s Senate and General Assembly passed bill S1976 R1 to amend the Revised Statute 4:22-26 in 2012.10 This amendment establishes the act of knowingly slaughtering a horse for the purpose of human consumption or selling, bartering, or transporting a horse for the purpose of human consumption as a disorderly persons offense.11 Similarly, California passed the Prohibition of Horse Slaughter and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption Act in 1998, making it a felony offense to possess, transport, or receive any equine with the intent to kill/have it killed for human consumption.12 More recently, in 2023, New York also passed Senate Bill 2163 with identical provisions regarding equine slaughter.13 

B. Cavel Int’l v. Madigan (2007)

Aside from legislation being passed, it has been established that states are capable of preventing the transportation of equines for slaughter through or out of their borders. In Cavel Int’l v. Madigan (2007), the plaintiff, Cavel International, operated an equine slaughterhouse prior to the enactment of the Illinois Horse Meat Act, which made it unlawful to slaughter or transport equines for slaughter in the state.14 Cavel argued that the act infringed upon the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which restricts states’ authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce by prohibiting the transportation of equine meat to regions where it is legal to consume.15 However, the Seventh Circuit held that the statute’s violation of the clause is slight and does not merit invalidating the statute.16 The Seventh Circuit concluded this because the statute does not discriminate against commerce, as the exportation of horses to be slaughtered for consumption, regardless of where the meat will be eaten, is outlawed in Illinois, and there is a legitimate state interest to prevent in-state slaughter.17 The Court also explained that a “state can without violating the commerce clause in Article I of the U.S. Constitution (which has been interpreted to limit the power of states to regulate foreign and interstate commerce even in the absence of applicable federal legislation) forbid the importation into the state of dangerous or noxious goods.”18 This allows Illinois to limit what goods are brought within the state borders, whether that is for sale there or for transportation elsewhere. The Court also held that the gains of the statute exceed the losses exhibited by Cavel International.19 These are just a few of the states that have passed their own legislation or upheld that exportation for slaughter violates state law; however, there are still states, such as Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, that transport equines to Canada and Mexico for this purpose.20


 IV. Potential Results of Expanded Legal Protections

A. Eliminating Ambiguity 

The differences in state laws and the current federal protections create a need for more consistency across levels of government for exportation, fostering confusion regarding the transportation of horses for slaughter across state borders. For example, while Cavel Int’l v. Madigan upheld that goods deemed “dangerous” – in this instance, equines for human consumption – can be prohibited from entering the state, the phrase “importation” in the actual state legislation may cause confusion.21 Moreover, the ambiguity in phrasing could potentially lead to misconceptions about the legality of transporting live equines through Illinois for slaughter without intending to sell within state borders. Since states such as New Jersey and New York utilize the phrase “transportation” when specifically referring to what is allowed to travel within their states’ borders, this confusion is emphasized. Adopting a federal amendment to address Section 12515 of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 would eliminate the ambiguity arising from the differing phrasing in state statutes on whether equines can travel through a state with bans to reach another location where exportation bans do not exist. This clarity would be further reinforced by including that “the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation in intrastate commerce of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption [is prohibited],” which is already outlined in the amendments made by the SAFE Act.22 This would provide an all-encompassing description of the illegality of transportation across state lines for slaughter rather than leaving it to individual states to ensure their own laws are sufficient. Moreover, initiating a federal ban would prevent future loss of revenue from slaughterhouses. Loss of profit could occur from businesses expanding, only to discover shipping routes are unavailable when they attempt to transport equines for slaughter through states with bans. 

B. Health Concerns: Consuming Horse Meat 

Amending Section 12515 of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 would help alleviate the nationwide medical concerns surrounding human consumption of equine meat. Equines, especially former racehorses, are often treated with vaccinations and banned injections to improve their performance throughout the course of their lives before being slaughtered.23 Many equines slated for slaughter are older and ill, resulting in higher levels of drug residue in their meat.24 Such drugs are unsafe for human consumption, and there is presently no regulatory process in place to remove horse meat contaminated with such drugs from uncontaminated meat.25 In fact, it has been found that eighty percent of Americans oppose horse slaughter for consumption due to health concerns or moral objections.26 The lack of oversight nationwide actively contributes to serious health problems precipitating from the consumption of equine meat internationally. Enacting the SAFE Act would address this issue through its overall ban on exportation for consumption. 

C. Preventing Equine Abuse

 Moreover, prevention of exportation for slaughter will lead to less equine abuse. Slaughterhouses deprive equines of basic necessities during transportation from the U.S. to foreign facilities before subjecting them to repeated injury prior to death.27 This is most commonly seen in Canada and Mexico. In Canada, recorded instances have shown that equines are not always unconscious prior to slaughter.28 In Mexico, the captive bolt guns used to slaughter the equines often do not function properly.29 As a result, slaughterhouse workers must shackle and hoist the equines before stabbing them upwards of thirteen times to incapacitate them.30 The kill pens in which equines are kept prior to death also cause them to experience severe panic and distress.31 With exportation for slaughter banned, equines will be able to receive humane care in line with the regulations in place by anti-animal cruelty laws, improving overall welfare. Those who are unable to survive in the U.S., instead of being slaughtered for meat, may be euthanized, a practice which is endorsed and deemed to be humane by the Humane Society.32 Expanding protections to equines may lead to potential future protections for other domesticated animals as well.

D. Alternative Options

Some may oppose banning the slaughter of equines due to concerns of properly accommodating the horses previously slated for slaughter. However, many of the equines transported for slaughter are able-bodied animals that were sold for meat before they could find an owner.33 Sanctuaries designated for equines without owners and stables have the capability to take in these equines, providing a humane alternative to a violent death.34 Additionally, euthanasia is an option for horses that are ill or unable to recover from injuries. Euthanasia and a corresponding burial is one humane and cost-effective way to ease their suffering without using excessive force or causing distress.35 This option is frequently employed for other domestic animals as well.

 V. Conclusion

Amending Section 12515 of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 would expand the legal protections of equines by prohibiting their exportation abroad for slaughter. While several states already have their own laws, this change would establish a uniform legal standard across the United States. This approach is preferable to the current system, where individual states uphold their own laws that are typically broad concerning interstate commerce and whether equines intended for slaughter can travel through states with bans. This amendment will also minimize equine abuse that results from transportation for slaughter and in foreign slaughterhouses. For these reasons, it is essential to revise the phrasing from “dogs or cats” to “dogs, cats, or equines.”

  1. Author’s Note: B.S. Candidate for Psychology and Political Science, Fordham College at Rose Hill, Class of 2027. I would like to thank the Editorial Board of the Fordham Undergraduate Law Review for their feedback and support of my Note.
  2. Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-334, § 12515, 132 Stat. 4490, 5000.
  3. Humane Society, Asia’s Dog Meat Trade, Humane Society International (2024), https://www.hsi.org/news-resources/dog-meat-trade-faqs/.
  4. Horse Slaughter Is Not Euthanasia, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, https://www.aspca.org/improving-laws-animals/public-policy/horse-slaughter.
  5. New Poll Confirms That Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Horse Slaughter, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2022), https://www.aspca.org/news/new-poll-confirms-overwhelming-majority-americans-oppose-horse-slaughter.
  6. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, supra note 5.
  7. Animal Welfare Institute, The Save America’s Forgotten Equines (SAFE) Act Would Expand the Dog and Cat Meat Prohibition Act Passed in the 2018 Farm Bill to Include Equines, Permanently Protecting American Horses From Slaughter, States News Service (2023), https://advance-lexis-com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:68GN-64K1-JCBF-S28W-00000-00&context=1516831.
  8. Id.
  9. John Holland and Laura Allen, An Analysis of Factors Responsible for the Decline of the U.S. Horse Industry: Why Horse Slaughter is not the Solution, 5 K.Y. J. OF EQUINE AGRIC. & NAT. RESOURCES L. 225, 232 (2012-2013).
  10. N.J. Stat. § 4:22-26 (2012).
  11. Holland & Allen, supra note 6, at 231.
  12. CAL. PEN. CODE § 598c (1998).
  13. N.Y. AGRIC. & MKTS. LAW § 385 (2024).
  14. Cavel Int’l v. Madigan 500 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2007).
  15. Id.
  16. Id.
  17. Id.
  18. Id.
  19. Id.
  20. Wayne Pacelle, Modest Surge in American Horses Exported to Mexico for Slaughter Underscores Urgent Need for Congress to Ban Trafficking of our Equids for Meat, Center for a Humane Economy (2024) https://centerforahumaneeconomy.org/2024/01/08/surge-in-american-horses-exported-to-mexico-for-slaughter.
  21. Cavel Int’l, 500 F.3d at 548. v. Madigan, supra note 13.
  22. SAFE Act, H.R.3355, 117th Cong. (2021).
  23. Weber, et al., A Review of Horses Sent to Slaughter for Human Consumption: Impact of Horsemeat Consumption, Residual Banned Drugs, and Public Health Risks, 84 AMERICAN JOURN. OF VET. RES. 1, 3 (2023).
  24. Id.
  25. Id.
  26. American Welfare Institute, supra note 6.
  27. Erica Strader, The Future of Horse Slaughter: What is Best?, 15 OR. REV. INT’L L. 293, 307 (2013).
  28. Id.
  29. Id.
  30. Id.
  31. Id.
  32. Id.
  33. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, supra note 5.
  34. Id.
  35. Id.
css.php