The Scoop / Page 1
COVERAGE
Professional Racking Association . . 56 WHOA Awards Banquet.................. 62
INFORMATION 20 ?’s with Detha Yoder................... 28 Front Covers Page............................ 48 News................................................ 38 Scoop Selection Winners ................ 12 Places To Be..................................... 54
COVER ADVERTISERS Front Cover.......................High Sword Inside Front Cover....... Jazzmine Lady Inside Back Cover......... I’m A Hustler/ ... A Specialist/Straight Line Cash Back Cover.............A Cadillac By Jazz
march 2, 2015
Volume 19 Issue 2 The Scoop, Inc. 409 Elm Street, P. O. Box 1658, Shelbyville, TN 37162-1658 931-680-5696 • 931-680-2860 (fax) www.thescooponline.com
OUR ADVERTISERS A Bama Belle....................................... 8 A Bit Of Change................................. 29 A Private Benjamin............................ 29 A Title One........................................... 3 Admission Is A Dollar........................ 25 Alan Price Stables............................. 50 Ashley Gray......................................... 8 BB’s Silver Lady................................ 58 BiBi Beasley ..................................... 65 Bikini Bottoms................................... 58 Bustline.............................................. 37 Claire Hankins................................... 37 Color Coded....................................... 21 Date Lined.......................................... 35 Detha Yoder ...................................... 29 Dirty Sexy Money.............................. 10 Dirty Sexy Money...............................11 Disturbia............................................... 8 Dollar’s Bright Star............................ 10 Dollar’s Bright Star.............................11 Firey Encore....................................... 50 Gen’s Black Maverick.......................... 6 GiGi’s Ember..................................... 37 Gin Toddy.......................................... 49 Harley.Com........................................ 50 Hey Pretty Girl . ................................ 34 High & Mighty Maxx.......................... 5 High Jacked........................................ 35 I Am GQ............................................. 34 I Am The Rock, Jr...............................11 I’m Bruce Pearl.................................. 35 I’m Chesapeak Bay............................ 50 I’m Mayhem......................................... 1 I’m Soul Sister................................... 26 I’m Steely Dan................................... 24 Jimmer Fredette................................. 32 Joe Pa................................................. 33 Jose’s Firecracker.............................. 58 Jose’s Dulce......................................... 9 Knock Em’ Ted...................................11 Laci Mathews . .................................. 59
Page 2 / The Scoop
Led Zeppelin...................................... 17 Lined Up At The Ritz......................... 45 Lipstick and Lead............................... 34 Little Bit of Coppertop....................... 62 Lucky Daze........................................ 45 Masq Of Jazz...................................... 47 Maxine Beasley.................................. 65 Mighty Maxx....................................... 4 Mikayla Dent..................................... 31 Miss Mexico...................................... 18 MP-1.................................................. 20 Mr Country Gentleman...................... 19 Odam Stables..................................... 55 On The Dotted Line........................... 50 PGA ................................................... 34 Princess Power................................... 63 Pulaski Horse Show........................... 52 Quarterback’s Keeper......................... 16 Rise To Fame..................................... 45 Ritz Entourage..................................... 7 Robert Cortner................................... 23 Robert Duetsch................................... 19 Silver’s Sassy Sally............................ 50 Simple Lee Dangerous....................... 20 Sky High Jose.................................... 30 Steel Connection.................................. 4 Sweepstake’s Gypsy Lady................. 46 Tennessee State Line.......................... 34 The Jazz Player.................................. 53 The Texas Lexus................................ 22 The White Masq................................. 27 Titleist Grand Slam............................ 36 Tripp My Trigger................................. 4 Turnbow............................................. 22 Unreal ............................................... 35 Walk Like Mike Jagger...................... 62 Watch Me Roll................................... 60 Wesley Staper..................................... 27 Woodbury Horse Show...................... 44 Xfinity................................................ 49
PUBLISHER
Jacquelyn Elliott Way
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Michelle Schoenvogel
ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVES Amanda Manis Nancy Elliott Sally Reiley Michelle Schoenvogel Tami Triplett Tracy Dorsey Sheryl Ward
GRAPHIC DESIGNERS Crystal Carter Angie McCammon
Visit us on Facebook! The Scoop Walking Horse Publication (ISSN Number 1540-2703) is published semi-monthy during January, February, November, and December, and weekly during March, April, May, June, July, August, September, and October at The Tennessean 1100 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37203. Periodical Postage Paid at Shelbyville, Tennessee and additional mailing offices. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: The current subscription rate is $50.00/year but is subject to change without notice. Foreign subscriptions may be subject to additional charges depending upon shipping costs. All foreign subscriptions must first contact the publication office at the address listed on this page prior to receiving subscription rights.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Scoop, P. O. Box 1658, Shelbyville, TN 37162. CHANGE OF ADDRESS: In the event of address changes, please contact The Scoop, Inc. in writing and allow one month advance notice. Please include the address portion of your last available paper, and make a note as to the date in which you would like the change to take place.
DEADLINE: Advertising deadline is Wednesday at noon of each week. PREPARATORY WORK: All work such as sketches, copy, art design, logo design formats created or furnished by The Scoop, Inc. shall remain the business property unless otherwise agreed in writing. The Scoop claims no responsibility for any misrepresentations that may occur as a result of submitted materials. These materials may include photographs, text, suggestions, ideas and editorials, but are not limited to this listing. Any party submitting The Scoop agrees to dismiss The Scoop from any and all liability in the case that a conflict arises as a result of that materials publication.
The Scoop / Page 3
Page 4 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 5
Page 6 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 7
Page 8 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 9
Page 10 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 11
Page 12 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 13
Page 14 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 15
Page 16 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 17
Page 18/ The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 19
Page 20/ The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 21
Page 22 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 23
Page 24 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 25
Page 26 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 27
Page 28 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 29
Page 30 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 31
Page 32 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 33
Page 34 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 35
Page 34 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 35
Page 36/ The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 37
NEWS
The Scoop For The Walking Horse Industry Excitement And Jubilation After Appeals Court Stops USDA Abusive Act The Walking Horse Industry is enjoying a time of excitement that has not prevailed in many years since the abusive and overreaching acts of the USDA were held to be illegal by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court Of Appeals in the case of Contender Farms vs. USDA. The Appeals Court overturned the U.S. District Court’s decision in a thorough and well reasoned opinion that clearly stated that the USDA had no power or right to require any HIO to impose mandatory penalties when the HIO finds that a horse is not HPA compliant. The Appeals Court further said that the USDA cannot dictate to the HIO it’s appeal process for a violation. This is the first time that the USDA has been stopped by the judicial process in its relentless strong arming and power abuse of the Walking Horse Industry. The precept that any regulatory agency, be it State or Federal, should operate under is to see that the Industry it regulates thrives and does well with the regulatory agency’s job to see that the Industry operates within the law. The USDA originally began its regulation of the Walking Horse Industry in 1971 along the lines mentioned above, however as time passed the USDA became more and more abusive and overreaching with the power of the Federal Government behind them, the USDA became a bureaucratic
gestapo toward the Walking Horse Industry instead of regulating, they started dictating and making law where there was none with no regard for the destruction of a billion dollar Industry that gave millions of dollars each year to charities that fed the poor, educated children, fed sickend and starving animals, provided housing and Christmas for those without, helped cure cancer and other diseases. Any bureaucracy left unchecked over a period of time will get out of control as evidenced by the IRS and VA. The USDA followed this path and gradually began to overreach and has become a strong armed power agency with no regard for the consequences of their acts to the Walking Horse industry. The USDA finally had some of their illegal action stopped by the Court Of Appeals and as a result the Walking Horse Industry is excited and they feel that they can enjoy their horses and sport again and this court’s decision has caused two new horse shows to be added to the spring show calendar where a 150 year old tradition of horse shows can be enjoyed once more.
contender farms vs. usda CONTENDER FARMS, L.L.P.; MIKE MCGARTLAND, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Before JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and GODBEY*, District Judge. E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Contender Farms, L.L.P. and Mike McGartland appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). McGartland owns Contender Farms, and each actively participates in the Tennessee walking horse industry by buying, selling, and exhibiting horses. They challenge a USDA regulation (the “Regulation”) promulgated under the Horse Protection Act (“HPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1821–31, requiring that private entities, known as Horse Industry Organizations (“HIOs”), impose mandatory suspensions on those participants found to engage in a practice known as “soring.”1 Soring is prohibited by the HPA, and the USDA, through various contractual arrangements, has long relied on HIOs to provide inspectors at Tennessee walking horse events. * District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 1 “Soring” is a process through which trainers may artificially achieve the distinctive gait prized in Tennessee walking horses. A trainer can teach a horse to attain this gait through legitimate means, but some trainers may produce a similar gait in a horse by applying chemical agents to the skin or utilizing other methods to induce pain in a horse’s legs. These latter practices are known as soring.
According to Contender Farms and McGartland, this new Regulation exceeds the USDA’s rulemaking authority under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–06, and fails to account for its impact on small businesses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–12. They also argue that the Regulation deprives them of due process and violates the separation of powers. The USDA disputes each contention,
Page 38 / The Scoop
and it further argues that Contender Farms and McGartland fail to present a justiciable controversy on grounds of standing and ripeness. At summary judgment, the district court held that Contender Farms and McGartland presented a justiciable controversy, but it entered a final judgment in favor of the USDA on the merits of the challenge, concluding that the Regulation is valid. The parties renew these arguments on appeal. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s holding as to justiciability, REVERSE and VACATE its ruling on the merits, and REMAND the case for entry of judgment in favor of Contender Farms and McGartland. I. To resolve this appeal, we must interpret both the HPA and the USDA regulations promulgated under the HPA. Ultimately, we must decide whether the Regulation falls within the scope of the USDA’s authority under the HPA. We begin with a summary of the statutory and regulatory framework. The HPA requires the USDA to “prescribe by regulation requirements for the appointment by the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purposes of enforcing this chapter.” 15 U.S.C. § 1823(c). Under the HPA, the management of each horse show serves as primary enforcer of the HPA. The HPA provides to the respective managements a choice: (1) decline to hire USDA-approved inspectors and accept liability for failing to disqualify a sored horse, irrespective of whether such management knows that the horse is a sore; or (2) hire USDAapproved inspectors and face liability only if management allows the horse to compete after being told that it is a sore. Id. at §§ 1824(3) & (5). Most of the major Tennessee walking horse events have chosen to avoid “strict liability” and followed the second option. Pursuant to the provisions of § 1823(c), the USDA does not employ its own inspectors. Instead, the USDA created, by regulation, what the parties call the “DQP program.” The USDA authorizes designated qualified persons (“DQPs”), private individuals holding a valid DQP license, to inspect horses at events. 9 C.F.R. § 11.7(a). In turn, the USDA requires that “[l]icensing of DQP’s will be accomplished only through DQP programs certified by the Department and initiated and maintained by horse industry organizations or associations [i.e., HIOs].” Id. at § 11.7(b). The USDA established various requirements for HIO-administered training programs, including required hours of
classroom instruction in particular topics, production of a sample examination, criteria for maintaining qualifications and performance abilities, methods for insuring uniform interpretation and enforcement of the HPA, and standards of conduct for inspectors. Id. HIOs must also submit their rulebooks to the USDA. Id. at § 11.41. Under this program, an event’s management that wishes to have DQPs perform inspections contracts with an HIO, which then provides the DQPs who perform the inspections. To participate in the event, a competitor must agree to be bound by that HIO’s procedures. Traditionally, HIOs imposed penalties for soring violations and provided procedures for appealing those penalties. HIOs were free, however, to vary their penalties and appeals procedures, and competitors had a choice to select events, which could be based in part on a particular HIO’s penalties and procedures. Both parties admit that HIO penalties varied, with some imposing mandatory suspensions for certain soring violations and others declining to impose the more stringent penalties. For years the USDA has sought to reduce such disparities among HIOs. Initially, the USDA entered into voluntary “Operating Plans” with HIOswhereby cooperating HIOs agreed to impose certain penalties for particular violations and honor suspension lists from other HIOs. In 2010, the HIOs could not agree with the USDA on an operating plan. That same year the USDA Office of Inspector General released a report (the “OIG Report”), which concluded that the private system of HPA enforcement through HIOs yielded inconsistent enforcement of the HPA and failed to address adequately the problem of soring. As a result of the OIG Report, the USDA proposed the Regulation. It solicited public comments on the Regulation and adopted it as a Final Rule in June 2012. The Regulation requires that HIOs adopt mandatory minimum penalties for a number of soring violations as a condition of certification for participation in the DQP program. 9 C.F.R. § 11.25(c). Additionally, the Regulation requires HIOs to adopt an appeals process that “must be approved by the [USDA],” and “the appeal must be granted and the case heard and decided by the HIO or the violator must begin serving the penalty within 60 days of the date of the violation.” Id. at § 11.25(e). The Regulation also reiterates that the USDA may institute its own enforcement proceedings pursuant to its authority under the HPA “with respect to any violation of the [HPA], including violations for which penalties are assessed in accordance with this section.” Id. at § 11.25(f). II. We first consider whether Contender Farms and McGartland present a justiciable controversy. The USDA has raised an issue of standing and an issue of ripeness. We review both issues de
NEWS
The Scoop For The Walking Horse Industry contender farms vs. usda novo, and we examine each in turn. Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533, 542 (5th Cir. 2008). A. We begin with the basic proposition that the Constitution limits our jurisdiction to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. The doctrine of standing flows from this constitutional limitation and is an essential aspect of it. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976). “At bottom, ‘the gist of the question of standing’ is whether [the parties invoking standing] have ‘such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination.’” Massachusetts v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)). Contender Farms and McGartland can satisfy the constitutional elements of standing by “present[ing] (1) an actual or imminent injury that is concrete and particularized, (2) fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and (3) redressable by a judgment in [their] favor.” Duarte ex rel. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 759 F.3d 514, 517 (5th Cir. 2014). They must also support each standing element “in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.2 We conclude that Contender Farms and McGartland satisfy each of the three elements. As this case is before us on a motion for summary judgment, Contender Farms and McGartland must set forth sufficient facts that comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. We note, however, that the district court considered this case through a unique procedure that was, in its terms, “in effect, a bench trial on the written briefs.” Neither party indicates that this procedure alters our standard of review on the standing issue. The district court concluded that Contender Farms and McGartland clearly presented a justiciable controversy, and as we explain infra, we agree. 2
1. We initiate our discussion by addressing a basic question that underlies all three elements of standing—“whether the plaintiff is himself an object” of the challenged regulation. Id. at 561. If a plaintiff is an object of a regulation “there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it.” Id. at 561–62. By contrast, “when the plaintiff is not himself the object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily substantially more difficult to establish.” Id. at 562 (internal quotation marks omitted). As this distinction is often a helpful guidepost in the standing inquiry, we examine this matter first and conclude that Contender Farms and McGartland are objects of the Regulation. See Duarte, 759 F.3d at 518. Whether someone is in fact an object of a regulation is a flexible inquiry rooted in common sense. For example, in Duarte, we addressed a city ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from establishing residence near areas where children gather. Id. at 515. A registered sex offender, along with his wife and daughters, challenged the ordinance. We concluded that the registered sex offender was a target of the ordinance, and we “reach[ed] the same conclusion with respect to [his] wife and daughters.” Id. at 518. The city made the argument that the USDA makes today: that the ordinance applies by its terms only to the individual regulated and not to aggrieved, yet unnamed, parties. We rejected this argument, noting that it “overlooks the practical impact of the Lewisville ordinance on the family [of the sex offender].” Id. Thus, we concluded that the family members demonstrated a level of interference as to their lives that was sufficient to establish standing to challenge the regulation. The Third Circuit applied a similar analysis when a number of sports leagues challenged a New Jersey statute permitting betting on many types of sporting events. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Governor of New Jersey, 730 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2013) (“NCAA”). In NCAA, the court noted that New Jersey’s law “does not directly regulate the Leagues, but instead regulates the activities that may occur at the State’s casinos and racetracks.” Id. at 219. Although the court expressed reluctance in concluding that the sports leagues could satisfy the standing requirements merely by
pointing to the statute, it noted that the law is “in a sense, as much directed at the Leagues’ events as it is aimed at the casinos.” Id. Thus, “[t]his is not a generalized grievance like those asserted by environmental groups over regulation of wildlife in cases where the Supreme Court has found no standing.” Id. Applying this commonsense approach to the facts in this case, it is clear that Contender Farms and McGartland are objects of the Regulation. By its terms, the Regulation requires an HIO to enforce USDA-approved minimum suspension penalties for many types of soring violations. 9 C.F.R. § 11.25(a). This requirement targets participants in Tennessee walking horse events like Contender Farms and McGartland. The Regulation states that in the event a DQP discovers a violation, “any individuals who are responsible for showing the horse, exhibiting the horse, entering or allowing the entry of the horse in a show or exhibition, selling the horse, auctioning the horse, or offering the horse for sale or auction must be suspended.” Id. at § 11.25(b)(1). Thus, the suspensions target participants in Tennessee walking horse events like Contender Farms and McGartland, and they are as much objects of the Regulation as the HIOs themselves. The Regulation requires that an HIO “provide a process in its rulebook for alleged violators to appeal penalties.” Id. at § 11.25(e). Contender Farms and McGartland must accept an HIO’s rulebook as a condition of entry. In the event of any soring violation, they would be subject to the USDA-approved appeal procedures. To compete in an event, Contender Farms and McGartland must agree to be bound by the appeal process found in the HIO’s rulebook. Although the HIOs must maintain the appeal procedures, event participants are actually subject to them. Contender Farms and McGartland indicate that they will continue to participate in these events, and they will be bound by these procedures. We find unpersuasive the USDA’s argument that the Regulation targets only those horse owners who sore horses, not owners like Contender Farms and McGartland who purportedly do not. All participants in a competition that uses HIOs agree at the outset to be bound by the terms of the HIO’s rulebook, which includes the now-mandatory suspension and appeal procedures. The participants also agree to be bound by the inspection procedures. As the record indicates, inspections are far more art than science. In many cases, inspectors, veterinarians, and other professionals will disagree as to whether a horse is actually a sore. The record also suggests that those who actually sore their horses will go to great lengths to hide the results in order to avoid detection, which further muddies the waters with regard to inspections. Finally, we also reject the USDA’s argument that Contender Farms and McGartland lack standing because they are not “forced” to use HIO-affiliated shows. The record establishes that the preeminent events in the Tennessee walking horse industry affiliate with HIOs; Contender Farms and McGartland suggest that they could neither earn a living nor compete recreationally without participating in these events. Contender Farms and McGartland are objects of the Regulation because they participate in the type of events that the Regulation seeks to regulate, i.e., the major Tennessee walking horse events.To be clear, this Regulation actually depends on the participation of parties like Contender Farms and McGartland. Thus, we conclude that they are objects of the Regulation. 2. Next, we find no reason to depart from the ordinary rule that Contender Farms and McGartland, as objects of the Regulation, may challenge it. Contender Farms and McGartland demonstrate a concrete injury resulting from the Regulation that would be redressable by a favorable decision of this Court. An increased regulatory burden typically satisfies the injury in fact requirement. See Ass’n of Am. R.R.s v. Dep’t of Transp., 38 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“American Railroads”). In American Railroads, challengers to a regulation argued that a new rule required them to comply with two sets of regulations enforced by two agencies instead of one. Id. at 585. The court concluded that the assertion that railroads “are materially harmed by the additional regulatory burden imposed upon them as the result of a federal agency’s unlawful adoption of a rule” established standing. Id. at 586. The Regulation amounts to an increased regulatory burden. Under the Regulation, competitors like Contender Farms and McGartland now face harsher, mandatory penalties from HIOs. Additionally, they may also face prosecution from the USDA pursuant to its own enforcement authority. Naturally, Contender Farms and McGartland, along with any other competitors, must
take additional measures to avoid even the appearance of soring. Contender Farms and McGartland must also agree to the new procedures when they enter a competition, and they forfeit their rights under the previous regulatory framework to “shop around” among competitions employing different HIOs. Causation and redressability then flow naturally from the injury. The record indicates that HIOs offered a range of penalties and appeals procedures before the USDA adopted the Regulation. Although the USDA correctly notes that HIOs could impose penalties before the promulgation of the Regulation, the record indicates that a number of the HIOs previously opposed mandatory minimum suspensions.3 If we find that the Regulation is invalid, Contender Farms and McGartland can again participate in competitions with a range of available sanctions and appellate processes. 3
SHOW, Inc., which was a party before the district court, resisted the Regulation. SHOW had not imposed mandatory suspensions prior to the Regulation, and it opposed such penalties after the USDA promulgated the Regulation. Although it was once the largest HIO, it is apparently now inactive.
In sum, Contender Farms and McGartland have standing to challenge the Regulation because they are objects of the Regulation, and they have independently satisfied the three prongs of constitutional standing. B. Alternatively, the USDA contends that Contender Farms and McGartland have not presented a ripe controversy even if they can meet the elements of standing. According to the USDA, the dispute is unripe because there is only a remote possibility that Contender Farms and McGartland will actually be subject to the mandatory minimum suspensions under the Regulation because they do not purport to sore horses. We conclude, however, that the dispute is ripe for review. The ripeness and standing analyses are closely related, as ripeness inquires as to “‘whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention.’” Miss. State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 529 F.3d 538, 544–45 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 n.10 (1975)). The USDA argues that this is a pre-enforcement challenge to the Regulation, and in such cases “[a]n allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is certainly impending, or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014)(internal quotation marks omitted). When the parties challenge a regulation,the ripeness inquiry seeks to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature
adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148–49 (1967) (abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977)). First, we observe that Contender Farms and McGartland raise a purely legal challenge to the Regulation. If we adopt their view, the Regulation exceeds the USDA’s authority as granted by Congress and violates various constitutional principles. Thus, “[i]t is unnecessary to wait for the [Regulation] to be applied in order to determine its legality.” Nat’l Envtl. Dev. Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 752 F.3d 999, 1008 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Moreover, the USDA has promulgated a final rule, and it appears from this litigation that it has every intention of requiring HIOs to adopt these requirements or face decertification from the DQP program. As we explained above, this will affect Contender Farms and McGartland. As the Supreme Court noted in Driehaus, “[n]othing in this Court’s decisions requires a plaintiff who wishes to challenge the constitutionality of a law to confess that he will in fact violate that law.” 134 S. Ct. at 2345. The challenge here is similar to that in Driehaus, where a public interest group challenged an Ohio law prohibiting false advertising about a political candidate. The group had accused a congressional candidate of supporting a measure that included “taxpayer-funded abortion,” and the candidate filed a challenge based on the false advertising law. Id. at 2339. A panel found probable cause that the group violated the law, but the candidate lost and dropped his challenge before it could be finally resolved. Id. at 2339–40. To support justiciability, the group claimed that it intended to engage in similar future activity, and it
The Scoop / Page 39
NEWS
The Scoop For The Walking Horse Industry contender farms vs. usda sought to proceed with its challenge to the law. Id. at 2343. The Supreme Court concluded that the alleged future conduct was “arguably” proscribed by the law, particularly given its broad reach. Id. at 2344. This Regulation targets soring, which is a practice that yields a large number of “false positives.” Inspectors face significant difficulties distinguishing violators from nonviolators. As in Driehaus, Contender Farms and McGartland will encounter these risks because they intend to participate in these events in the future. Accordingly, we hold that the dispute is ripe for review. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s ruling as to justiciability, and we proceed to analyze the merits of the challenge to the Regulation. III. Because the USDA is statutorily authorized to administer the HPA, we review the merits of the regulation under the well-established principles of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837(1984). Dhuka v. Holder, 716 F.3d 149, 154 (5th Cir. 2013). Under Chevron, we must first decide whether “Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” and if it has, we apply Congress’s answer to the question. 467 U.S. at 842–43. Alternatively, “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843. Our goal at all times is to effectuate congressional intent, as we presume “that Congress, when it left ambiguity in a statute administered by an agency, understood that the ambiguity would be resolved, first and foremost, by the agency, and desired the agency (rather than the courts) to possess whatever degree of discretion the ambiguity allows.” City of Arlington, Tex. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1868 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court concluded that the HPA did not address the precise question at issue and, proceeding to the second prong of Chevron, it found that the USDA’s construction of the statute was reasonable. On appeal, the USDA and its amici urge us to adopt the district court’s interpretation of the HPA. Contender Farms and McGartland argue that the HPA addresses this issue and the statute clearly prohibits the Regulation. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Contender Farms and McGartland, and thus we REVERSE and VACATE the district court’s ruling on this ground without reaching either the second prong of Chevron or the various other issues that Contender Farms and McGartland raise. See Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491, 499 (5th Cir. 2007) (avoiding various constitutional issues by finding that the regulation at issue failed under Chevron). We outline the relevant law, parse the Regulation, and then apply the law to the HPA to decide this case. A. To determine whether a statute is ambiguous, we evaluate it using the “traditional tools of statutory construction.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n.9. Unlike the deference given to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, “[t]he judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent.” Id. Indeed, “[w]here Congress has established a clear line, the agency cannot go beyond it.” City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1874. We determine whether a statute is ambiguous based in part on “the text itself, its history, and its purpose.” Bellum v. PCE Constructors, Inc., 407 F.3d 734, 739 (5th Cir. 2005). Canons of statutory interpretation further assist us in assessing the meaning of a statute. See Miss. Poultry Ass’n, Inc. v. Madigan, 31 F.3d 293, 307 (5th Cir. 1994). Several basic considerations guide our inquiry under these canons: (1) we begin with the statute’s language; (2) we give undefined words “their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning;” (3) we read the statute’s words in proper context and consider them based on the statute as a whole; and (4) we consider a statute’s terms in the light of the statute’s purposes. Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 353 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bell Atl. Tel. Cos.v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 131 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (explaining that “text, legislative history, and structure” are traditional tools of statutory interpretation). Our review is ultimately “‘bound, not only by the ultimate purposes Congress has selected but by the means it has deemed appropriate, and prescribed, for the pursuit of those purposes.’” Texas, 497 F.3d at 502 (quoting MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. AT&T Co., 512 U.S. 218, 231 n.4 (1994)) (emphasis removed). We do not merely presume that a power is delegated if Congress
Page 40 / The Scoop
does not expressly withhold it, as then “‘agencies would enjoy virtually limitless hegemony, a result plainly out of keeping with Chevron and quite likely with the Constitution as well.’” Id. at 503 (quoting Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053, 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). Thus, an administrative agency does not receive deference under Chevron merely by demonstrating that “a statute does not expressly negate the existence of a claimed administrative power (i.e., when the statute is not written in “thou shalt not” terms).” Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 29 F.3d 655, 671 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (emphasis in the original). With these principles in mind, we turn first to the challenged Regulation and then to the USDA’s regulatory authority under the HPA. B. Speaking somewhat broadly, we can say that the Regulation alters but does not eliminate the longstanding practices surrounding the DQP program: HIOs train and certify DQPs according to USDA requirements, which persons then inspect horses at those shows at which the management has contracted with an HIO to provide DQPs. We will now proceed to the relevant aspects of the Regulation. First, the Regulation imposes mandatory minimum penalties that must be assessed by HIOs for soring violations. Previously, HIOs developed and enforced their own penalties according to their rulebooks. Although HIOs were required to provide copies of these rulebooks to the USDA, the USDA was not formally involved in writing or imposing penalty assessments. See 9 C.F.R. § 11.41 (requiring HIOs to annually furnish the USDA with their rulebooks and disciplinary procedures). Instead, the USDA attempted to influence HIOs through voluntary agreements. Under this Regulation, however, “[e]ach HIO that licenses DQPs . . . must include in its rulebook, and enforce, penalties for the violations listed in this section that equal or exceed the penalties listed in paragraph (c) of this section and must also enforce the requirement in paragraph (d) of this section.” Id. at § 11.25(a) (emphasis added). Thus, the Regulation establishes the penalties that HIOs must impose as a condition of HIO participation in the DQP program.4 4
These mandatory penalties are significant. Contender Farms and McGartland focus on suspensions for bilateral soring violations, where a horse is sore in both forelimbs or hindlimbs, unilateral soring violations, where a horse is sore in one of its forelimbs or hindlimbs, and violations of the scar rule. Bilateral soring violations require mandatory suspensions of one year for a first time violation, two years for a second violation, and four years for any subsequent violations. 9 C.F.R. § 11.25(c)(1). Unilateral soring violations require mandatory suspensions of sixty days for a first offense, one hundred twenty days for a second offense, and one year for subsequent offenses. Id. at § 11.25(c)(2). For scar rule violations, violators receive mandatory suspensions of fourteen days for a first offense, sixty days for a second offense, and one year for subsequent offenses. Id. at § 11.25(c)(3).
Second, the Regulation requires that HIOs establish particular appeals procedures to address disagreements over DQP findings of violations. Specifically, the Regulation provides: The HIO must provide a process in its rulebook for alleged violators to appeal penalties. The process must be approved by the Department. For all appeals, the appeal must be granted and the case heard and decided by the HIO or the violator must begin serving the penalty within 60 days of the date of the violation. The HIO must submit to the Department all decisions on penalty appeals within 30 days of the completion of the appeal. When a penalty is overturned on appeal, the HIO must also submit evidence composing the record of the HIO’s decision on the appeal. Id. at § 11.25(e). Contender Farms and McGartland primarily argue that the sixty-day requirement imposed by the USDA makes it nearly impossible for HIOs adequately to consider the complex issues that often arise with soring allegations. They also argue that the USDA has not given the HIOs sufficient time to adopt appropriate appeal procedures. Finally, Contender Farms and McGartland argue that there is insufficient judicial review of these procedures. Third, the Regulation authorizes the USDA to initiate its own prosecutions for HPA violations, even if the HIOs penalize a violator in accordance with § 11.25(c). Indeed, the Regulation provides: The Department retains the authority to initiate enforcement
proceedings with respect to any violation of the Act, including violations for which penalties are assessed in accordance with this section, and to impose the penalties authorized by the Act if the Department determines that such actions are necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Act and this part. In addition, the Department reserves the right to inform the Attorney General of any violation of the Act or of this part, including violations for which penalties are assessed in accordance with this section. Id. at § 11.25(f). As the USDA asserts on appeal, it has not delegated its enforcement power under the HPA because it expressly reserves its own right to seek civil or criminal penalties. Similarly, it appears that a violator could be exonerated by the HIO yet still prosecuted by the USDA on its own authority under the HPA. Indeed, the appeals procedure requires the HIO to submit its records to the USDA, and it appears that the Regulation may encourage such prosecutions. See id. at §§ 11.25(e)–(f). In sum, the Regulation is an indisputably significant effort by the USDA to become involved in HIO enforcement procedures. Although participants in horse shows have always been subject to regulations from both HIOs and the USDA, the USDA has now taken intrusive steps into the private scheme to strengthen the penalties that HIOs must levy against those found to sore horses. Additionally, the USDA significantly increased its oversight of HIO review procedures. In the past the HIOs could develop their own appeal procedures, but these procedures must now be approved by the USDA and reconfigured in accordance with the USDA’s specific requirements. So, we now move on to decide whether the HPA contemplates such USDA involvement in HIO enforcement mechanisms and, as we explain below, we conclude that it does not. C. The USDA purports to draw its authority to adopt the Regulation from several provisions of the HPA. Upon examining these provisions, we conclude that none of these provisions authorizes the Regulation but conversely, that these provisions plainly prohibit the Regulation. 1. First, to justify the extension of its authority asserted in the Regulation, the USDA invokes its statutory duty to regulate horse inspectors under §1823(c). The HPA provides as follows: The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation requirements for the appointment by the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purposes of enforcing this chapter. 15 U.S.C. § 1823(c) (emphasis added). The USDA invoked this provision when it issued its notice of a Final Rule, stating that “requiring HIOs to implement a minimum penalty protocol would strengthen our enforcement of the [HPA] by ensuring that minimum penalties are assessed and enforced consistently by all HIOs that are certified under the regulations pursuant to [§ 1823] of the [HPA].” 77 Fed. Reg. at 33,608. The Regulation plainly imposes conditions of certification for HIOs that build upon the more general regulations the USDA already imposes. See 9 C.F.R. § 11.25(a) (referencing the certification conditions in 9 C.F.R. § 11.7). As always, we begin our initial inquiry by looking to the plain language of § 1823(c). Here, when reduced to its essence, the provision permits the USDA to promulgate “requirements for the appointment by the management . . . of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse . . . or to otherwise inspect horses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1823(c). Its meaning hinges on two terms undefined by the statute—“requirements” and “qualified.” Thus, turning to the common understanding of these words, a “requirement” is commonly: “1. That which is required; something needed. 2. Something obligatory: a prerequisite.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1105 (William Morris ed. 1981). A person is “qualified” if he or she is “[c]ompetent, suited, or having met the requirements for a specific position or task.” Id. at 1067.5 5
Indeed, other dictionaries define both terms using similar language. See, e.g., The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, The Unabridged Edition 1174, 1219 (Jess Stein ed. 1981).
The USDA relies heavily on the broad definition of “requirements,” arguing that the Regulation merely adopts new “requirements for HIOs” that participate in the DQP program. This may well be true, but the argument is off target. The statutory authorization to promulgate “requirements” refers, not to requirements for HIOs, but requirements for “persons” to perform
NEWS
The Scoop For The Walking Horse Industry contender farms vs. usda inspections of horses. Section 1823(c) does not authorize the USDA to adopt, carte blanche, any condition that it wishes for participation in the DQP program. Instead, a “requirement” promulgated pursuant to § 1823(c) must relate to whether “persons” are “qualified” to inspect horses for evidence of soring. Thus, an event’s management must appoint inspectors deemed “qualified” by the USDA pursuant to its regulations. The Regulation here extends the authority of the USDA beyond that statutorily defined mission. Although federal agencies often possess broad authorities to regulate behavior, an agency may not “create from whole cloth new liability provisions.” Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 635 F.3d 738, 753 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Pork Producers”). For example, in Pork Producers the EPA attempted to impose liability on certain animal feeding operations under the Clean Water Act if those operations “propose” to discharge various pollutants into waterways. 635 F.3d at 750–51. We concluded that the Clean Water Act only regulates those who discharge and not those who propose to discharge; thus, the regulation violated the Clean Water Act. Id. at 751. We concluded that the EPA could not stray beyond the statute, which evinces the intent of Congress. Id. at 751–52. The USDA urges that its new enforcement regime is a proper assertion of its statutory authority because the HPA anticipates the DQP program, and consequently, this parallel enforcement scheme is within its statutory authorization. But nothing in § 1823(c) contemplates USDA involvement in the enforcement procedures of HIOs. Although nothing in the HPA prohibits HIOs from voluntarily adopting such procedures, such statutory silence is far from a grant of authority that permits the USDA to promulgate regulations imposing uniform penalties. Section 1823(c) plainly allows the USDA only to impose those requirements that relate to the certification and inspection process for individual inspectors. By contrast, and contrary to the statute, the Regulation establishes a parallel enforcement scheme.6 It is purportedly a private scheme, but the USDA interjects itself into each layer of enforcement. At the bottom end, it imposes mandatory suspensions on competitors, enforced through the HIOs. Then, the Regulation requires that the HIOs adopt appeal procedures that meet the USDA’s approval and comply with its timeline. The plain language of § 1823(c) simply does not support these measures.7 6
Indeed, Congress expressly conferred civil and criminal enforcement authority to the USDA elsewhere in the HPA. Such violators of the HPA could be disqualified from participating in horse shows “by order of the Secretary, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the Secretary.” 15 U.S.C. § 1825(c). By its plain language, the HPA confers upon the USDA the ability to disqualify competitors from participating in the Tennessee walking horse industry following notice and a hearing before the USDA. This provision addresses the issue of enforcement, and it provides that only the USDA has enforcement power, not HIOs. In the light of § 1825, the USDA possesses only the authority: (1) to provide qualifications for inspectors; and (2) to, itself, assess penalties for HPA violations. 7 Both parties direct us to passages from the HPA’s legislative history, which they submitted as part of the record. These passages suggest that § 1823(c) was passed so that the USDA could provide minimum qualification and certification requirements for horse inspectors. Thus, we agree with Contender Farms and McGartland that the legislative history provides support for our reading of the provision. Congress contemplated that the USDA would exercise its authority to establish training and education programs for horse inspectors. Although § 1823(c) permits the USDA to establish duties for inspectors, such duties must be related to their physical inspections of horses. Nothing in this legislative history supports the wholesale creation of an enforcement regime carried out by the HIOs.
2. Having decided that § 1823(c) does not support the Regulation, we turn to the rest of the HPA to decide whether any other provision supports the Regulation. The USDA points us to its general rulemaking authority under the HPA, which provides that “[t]he Secretary is authorized to issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 15 U.S.C. § 1828. According to the USDA and its amici, this broad authority permits this Regulation. We focus on the terms “provisions of this chapter.” By its terms, § 1828 authorizes the USDA to regulate when necessary to effectuate the other provisions in the HPA. As counsel for the USDA conceded at oral argument, §1828 does not purport to allow the USDA to amend the HPA. Thus, this provision is not a stand-alone source of authority to validate any rule the USDA wishes; the provision authorizes the USDA only to regulate in order to carry out the other provisions in the HPA. As we explained above, § 1823(c) does not extend to enforcement-related regulation, and the enforcement provisions in § 1825 apply only to the USDA and do not contemplate delegation to third parties. We find the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision in American Bar Association v. Federal Trade Commission, 530 F.3d 457 (D.C. Cir. 2005), persuasive. In American Bar, the court addressed a challenge to an act requiring that financial institutions establish certain privacy protections. Id. at 459. The law also gave the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies broad authority to “‘prescribe . . . such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to the financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction.’” Id. at 459 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 6804(a)(1)). The Federal Trade Commission subsequently asserted that it would apply the law “to regulate attorneys engaged in the practice of their profession,” and various bar associations brought suit. Id. at 466. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute did not apply to attorneys, and it declined to apply Chevron deference. Id. at 470–73. Thus, a broad grant of general rulemaking authority does not allow an agency to make amendments to statutory provisions. As in American Bar, the Regulation addresses an area that is plainly outside the USDA’s statutory authority. The HPA authorizes the USDA to develop a private inspection system carried out by DQPs who are certified by HIOs, but it does not imply that the USDA may then establish a mandatory private enforcement system administered by those HIOs. The USDA’s reading of its rulemaking authority under § 1828 of the HPA stretches beyond the statute’s plain language. We also reject the USDA’s argument that it can maintain this scheme merely because Congress did not expressly disallow such regulation. See id. at 468. Thus, we hold that § 1828 does not authorize the Regulation.8 8
associated with soring in § 1822, and the USDA points out that the HPA contains a broad prohibition on soring in § 1824. Neither provision supports the Regulation, though, because the USDA is bound by the means that Congress has chosen to prevent soring under the HPA. See Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491, 502 (5th Cir. 2007).
In sum, the plain language of the HPA suggests that Congress intended a private horse inspection system. This statutory regime does not support the USDA’s position that Congress authorized it to promulgate the Regulation, which requires private parties to impose governmentmandated suspensions as an arm of HPA enforcement. IV. After review, we AFFIRM the district court’s holding as to justiciability. Contender Farms and McGartland, regular participants in the Tennessee walking horse industry, have standing to challenge the Regulation and present a ripe challenge to it. On the merits, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that the Regulation is a valid application of USDA regulatory authority under the HPA, and accordingly, we REVERSE and VACATE its judgment. Finally, we REMAND the case for entry of judgment in favor of Contender Farms and McGartland. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and VACATED in part; and REMANDED for entry of judgment for the Plaintiffs.
WHOA March 7, 2015 Academy/ Schooling Show Rescheduled Shelbyville, TN - due to a scheduling conflict the March 7, WHOA Academy Schooling Show at Pleasant Valley Farms in Shelbyville, TN has been cancelled. A new show date will be announced. For more information on these or other shows contact the Walking Horse Owners Association office.
1st Annual Racking Readers Choice Scoop Selections
As of February 25, 2015 we have a ton of Readers Choice ballots are already open and tallied. We have several emails and envelopes still to open. Please get your ballots mailed in by the Deadline March 2nd. We are so pleased with such a great turnout of our first annual Readers Choice awards for the Racking Horses. The Scoop enjoys advertising and showcasing shows of all branches our great Tennessee Walking Horse. We are proud to be the ONLY publication that promotes the Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, Spotted Saddle Horse and Walking Mule.
The district court also pointed to Congress’s broad factual findings that outlined the problems
The Scoop / Page 41
NEWS
The Scoop For The Walking Horse Industry footloose for kids 5k
SOCIAL MEDIA POST-THANKING THE SCOOP I would like to thank THE SCOOP for printing the special award that was given to my daddy (Ronal Mosley) at the NCWH banquet. It really meant a lot to me that you always make a point to include the people that helped build our TWH business. Again thank you so much! Rhonda Mosley Baucom
Tennessee Walking Horse Portraits Greet Welcome Center Visitors
Tyler Bean Update Following a car accident, Tyler Bean is beginning to get his voice back. He is a very determined and a strong individual. He hopefully will be going to rehab sometime this week. Your thoughts and prayers have been greatly appreciated. Please support the Tyler Bean benefit at Ripwood Sale March 6, 2015.
WHTLA DUES Walking Horse Ladies Auxiliary Members your dues must be in (or postmarked) by March 1, 2015. They are $30. You can mail checks to the Auxiliary at PO Box 1821, Shelbyville, TN 37162
Page 42 / The Scoop
The Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’And Exhibitors’Association (TWHBEA) is pleased to announce that a portrait of 2012 World Grand Champion Walk Time Charlie is now featured at the 1-65 Robertson County Mitchellville Welcome Center at Portland, Tennessee. The display of this striking portrait is a joint venture between TWHBEA and the Tennessee Walking Horse National Museum (TWHNC). The presentation of the portrait was made by TWHBEA staff member Michael Gray along with TWHBEA member and TWHNC board member Francis Bates. TWH National Museum President Phillip Gentry and Mitchellville Welcome Center Manager Sherry Hutchinson both deserve special thanks for their support of this project. With the hanging of this portrait, the Tennessee Walking Horse is now prominently featured at welcome centers along each of Tennessee’s borders. Visitors to the great state of Tennessee can now view beautiful, larger-than-life portraits of our World Grand Champions as soon as they enter the state. Whether they are traveling from the north, south, east, or west, there is simply no better way to say “Welcome to Tennessee!” than with a portrait of one of its most beautiful namesakes.
NEWS
The Scoop For The Walking Horse Industry videotaping inspections
ripwood fling sale rescheduled Due to weather The Ripwood Spring Fling Sale & Concert has been rescheduled. The New Date will be March 6-7. Ripwood will also be hosting a Tyler Bean Benefit on March 6, 2015.
Kevin Gilliam update As of Feburary 5, 2015 the therapy is going very well. Kevin Gilliam is walking with very little help. Also, he is working hard on using his right arm and hand. Your prayers are working, keep them coming! We praise The Lord for all his continued healing!
Brad Kirby is Recovering Brad Kirby is alive and recovering at Heritage Medical Facility in Shelbyville, TN. On Sunday morning this was posted to social media by Cliff Carlock, brads brother. “On Friday afternoon our family was told that my brother Brad Kirby was clinically brain dead and when taken off the ventilator he would be gone in minutes. The organ donor people were called in and Brad was taken to the operation room where the ventilator was removed. He struggled all night but wouldn’t let go. This morning about 3:30 he woke up and knows his family and is responding to voice commands. He is still very sick but now there is hope. This shows who is really in charge! I’m so sorry for the miscommunication.
iris scan technology
tre hargett making appearance at the twh national museum Secretary of State Tre Hargett will attend the Tennessee Walking Horse National Museum on Friday, February 27, between 1:00 and 1:30 P.M. to present the Museum with a grant of $2,000. The grant monies will be used for the restoration, preservation and digitization of past films of the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration in Shelbyville. As of this date, the oldest reel the Museum has is of the 1942 Celebration. The Museum has worked very hard to obtain the grant and the old reels of film from the Celebration. Secretary Hargett requested that the Museum invite board members, volunteers, local media outlets and local and county officials to the presentation.
Shop Amazon Smile & Kroger and Support the TWH Museum Don’t forget that you can easily support the museum by selecting to support the Tennessee Walking Horse National Museum when you shop via the Amazon Smile program or by enrolling in the Kroger Community Rewards program to support the Tennessee Walking Horse National Museum.
The Scoop / Page 43
Page 44/ The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 45
Page 46 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 47
Page 48 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 49
Page 50 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 51
Page 52 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 53
Places To Be
february
27-28 EAST TENNESSEE 4-B HORSE SALE Located at Walter State Expo Center. Contact Jackie Barron at 423-292-5622 or Lisa Bowman Anderson at 423-552-0768 White Pine, TN 28 - March 1 WHOA DQP Clinic Tennessee Miller Coliseum Form Information Contact WHOA Murfreesboro, TN 28 VWRHOA AWARDS BANQUET Lynchburg, VA Located at Phase II. Contact Nellie Harris at 434-277-8511. Lynchburg, VA 24501 28 HEART OF AMERICA WALKING HORSE BANQUET Lumberton, NC 28358 Springfield, MO 28 MWHA HIGH POINT BANQUET Located at the Gold Strike Casino And Resort. Tunica, MS Contact Ron Carney 601-498-8328 Or Gale Myers 662-392-4235
march 6–8 CAROLINA WALKERS’ CAMDEN CLASSIC South Carolina Equine Park 443 Cleveland School Road Camden,SC 29020 Julie Clare: (803) 353-8520 or jcliveoak@yahoo.com 6-7 FLING SALE RIPWOOD SPRING Located at Pleasant Valley Farms. Contact Woody Woodruff at 931-224-5374. Shelbyville, TN 6-7 TEXAS NATIONAL SHOWDOWN HORSE SHOW Page 54 / The Scoop
Located at the George H. Henderson, Jr. Exposition Center. Contact Marcie Fessler at 832-492-1057 or email:marceeface@gmail. com. Lufkin, TX 75904 7 CHIMNEY TOP STABLES BARN PARTY AND TRADE DAY 10 a.m. Located at Chimney Top Stables. Contact Kelly France at 276-698-8706. Fall Branch, TN
7 LAUREL CHARITY HORSE SHOW Magnolia Center 1457 Ellisville Boulevard Laurel, MS 39440 Show Manager Perry Taylor: (601) 466-3535 7 SOUTHWEST MISSOURI ANNUAL BANQUET The location of the banquet is the Double Tree Hotel Springfield, MO 7 ETWHA BARN PARTY Located at Chimney Top Stables. Contact Kelly France at 276-698-8706. Fall Branch, TN 7 NCWHA & SCWHA 2015 SPRING FLING COLT PREVEW Hendrix Farm 2205 Augusta Highway Lexington, SC 29072 For more information contact Dr. Larry Heiden at 843-495-3825 or Robert Deutsch at 336-392-1567. 13 NWHA REGION 6 TEXAS JUBILEE Located at Brazos County Expo. Contact Secretary Paula Sue Swope at 903-489-0294 or paulasue@gaitedgala.com 14 SOUTH CENTRAL KENTUCKY WALKING HORSE ASSOCIATION BANQUET Barren River Lodge at the Barren River State Resort Park 1149 State Park Road Lucas, KY 42156 Robin Loid: (270) 791-1751
14 SPRING WARM-UP HORSE SHOW Calsonic Arena. Contact Benny Johnson at 540-533-9900. Shelbyville, TN 14 WHAA BARN PARTY Morgan County Celebration Arena (Sale Barn). For more information contact Nathan Clark - 256-505-1210. 14 PINE ROCK FARM SHOW SERIES #1 Located at Pine Rock Farm. Contact WHOA at 615-494-8822 or www. walkinghorseowners.com. 14 FLORIDA WALKING & RACKING HORSE ASSOCIATION FUN SHOW Location Darby Oaks. Bushnell, FL 21 WHOA ACADEMY/SCHOOLING SHOW Located at Clearview Horse Farm Shelbyville, tn. Contact WHOA at 615-4948822 or www.walkinghorseowners.com for more information. 27-29 VIRGINIA HORSE FESTIVAL Located at the Meadow Event Park Doswell, VA Contact WHOA at 615-494-8822 or www. walkinghorseowners.com. 26-28 MISSISSIPPI CHARITY HORSE SHOW (Riders’ Cup) Kirk Fordice Equine Center 1207 Mississippi Street Jackson, MS 39202 Carol Lackey: (931) 639-1199 28 PPWHANC SPRING FLING FUN SHOW For info, Hollie Huff at 919-693-7044, Lynn Dean at 336-364-1205 or Cynthia Bryant at 919693-3284. www.ppwhanc.com
28
OHIO VALLEY WALKING HORSE ASSOCIATION BARN PARTY Located at the Madison County Fairgrounds, Richmond, KY Contact Renee Lainhart at 859582-7505, Darrell Collins at 859-5824122 or Peggy Bramerloh at 859-3915272.
The Scoop / Page 55
Page 56 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 57
Page 58 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 59
Page 60/ The Scoop
Darden Gladney poses with the top ten recipients in the WHOA Quest Amateur Flat Shod division. Topping out this division was Maggie Moore. Maggie had many winning rides in the 2014 show season. Hailing from the Tarheel State, Jennifer Batts was reserve in this competitive division. Rounding out the top three was also a Tarheel native, Grace Cozart.
Battling it out to come out on top of 953 riders was Jannie Chapman to win the WHOA Quest Amateur Performance division. Jannie had a remarkable year in 2014 winning blues and championships all around the country. Sister Milligan received the reserve award with Detha Yoder rounding out the top three.
WHOA Hight Point Banquet
Murfreesboro, TN-The 2015 Annual Walking Horse Owner’s Association Awards Banquet was held Saturday Februaury 14th at the James Union Building on the campus of Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro. Many different divisions were recognized including the Register of Merit, the Versatility High Points, the Kentucky Incentive program, the Academy program, the National High Points and the Quest High Points. The newly elected Board Of Directors include President Dee Dee Miller-Sale, Dr. Jana Anderson, Jill Beech, Martha Child, Darden Gladney, Don Hancock, Caroline Hoffman, Phyllis Langley, Maggie Moore, Frank E. Neal, Newton Parks, Mick Salm, Mark Taylor, Lynn Womack, Jason Bachert, Kim Bennett, Kevin Gilliam, Darren Gray, Sandy Harris, Ella Kline, Rhonda Martocci, Peggy Moore, Kathy Owen, David Pruett, Sherrie Szucs and Duke Thorson. Mark Farrar served as the announcer for the event which started out with Academy presentations. Several other award categories were announced followed by a delicious dinner. The presentation of Appreciation Awards were given following was the presentation of the Dr. Bob and Elizabeth Womack Memorial Achievement Award which was given to David Pruett. A silent auction was held as well as a 50/50 drawing. The Scoop extends it’s congratulations to the winners and wishes everyone a successful 2015 show season.
Always a familiar face in the Weanling and Yearling divisions, Ella and Mike Kline accept the award in the Weanling Fillies division with Black Stroke’s Vengeance. They also claimed the Yearling Colt division with Seminole Win for Kline and Messimer. Seminole Win was also the Halter High Point Horse Of The Year.
Finishing his final year in the Youth division, Robert Cortner topped 153 other riders to come out on top in the WHOA Quest Youth Performance division.
The Scoop / Page 61
Page 62 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 63
WHOA Hight Point Banquet
Tom Gossard and Sandra & Wayne Barnes are enjoying the banquet.
Phyllis Reed, Steve & Sharon Perry came to visit with old friends and accept their awards.
Jim Leek and Maggie Moore are joined by Carole Hill.
Dave & Holly Thrasher-Schoedner are ecstatic with their Kentucky Breeders Incentive Fund High Point Awards.
Wilsene Moody Kwok and Ella Kline are all decked out in their finest outfits
Carol Wakefield & Jean Hill like posing for the camera.
Page 64 / The Scoop
The Scoop / Page 65
WHOA Hight Point Banquet LEAD LINE 1.BiBi Beasley 2.Maxine Beasley 3.Rylee Nichols
TRAIL OBSTACLE 1.Victory Trip 2.Count On Spirit O’Three 3.Enchanters MG
PLEASURE DRIVING 1.The Kings Reward 2.My Private Eye 3.Jose’s Black Swan
Mike & Kim Campbell Royce & Ann Marie Couch Gladney Farms
FINE HARNESS 1.Lined Royal Cash 2.I’m Sky King 3.Breakin Parole
Dr. Jack Kwok Raymond & Jane Stiles Ron Lawrence
Linda Starnes Morgan Hodge Jo Boucher
AMATEUR/YOUTH CLASSIC PARK 1.Carbon’s Triple Coin Steve & Sharon Rice 2.Divine Tina Bowling 3.Lil Wayne Jeff Gillespie AMATEUR SHOW PLEASURE 1. I Am The Rock, Jr. Bill & Jannie Chapman 2. Dark Escape Dr. John & Judith Dial 3. El Zorro’s Rick Compton Family
COUNTRY PLEASURE 1.Ebony’s Enchanted Dream Jo Boucher 2.Excalibur’s Masterpiece Chuck Spinelli 3.Designer Champagne Kimberly Coult
AMATEUR SPECIALTY 1.A Private Benjamin 2.Dollars Bright Star 3.Joses Centerfold
MODEL MARES 1.Winning Money Susan Landers 2.Fifteen Stars Behind Me Rushing Creek Walkers 3.Count On Spirit O’ Three Morgan Hodge
AMATEUR PARK PERFORMANCE 1.Dirty Sexy Money Bill & Jannie Chapman 2.Fetch Me The Title Andy Rippy Family 3.He’s Extraordinary S & P LLC
MODEL GELDINGS 1.Finals Jazz Mann Carolina Carraway 2.Don’t Thread On Me Rushing Creek Walkers 3.Pride’s Blue Moon Casanova Wesley Mae Riggs
YOUTH COUNTRY PLEASURE 1.Count On Spirit O’Three Morgan Hodge 2.I’m USMC Dana Drew 3.Final’s Jazz Mann Carolina Carraway
MODEL STALLIONS 1.Armed With Intent 2.An American Boy 3.Blue Blooded Bandit
WEANLING AMATEUR/YOUTH 1.Emmitt Smith 22 Roger Richards 2.Lined My Pockets Carlon Cotten 3.Hello Julio Dotson & Jenkins
Rushing Creek Walkers Rushing Creek Walkers Coldwater Stables
YOUTH TRAIL PLEASURE 1.She’s Doubly Delightful Jennifer Batts 2.Malibu Rum Grace Cozart 3.I’m Percy Sledge Brooklynne Watkins AMATEUR 50 AND OVER 1.Unreal 2.Command and Control 3.I’m P Diddy
Lisa Baum Crawford Colts S & P LLC
AMATEUR 15.2 & UNDER 1.Boure 2.A Bit of Change 3.I’m Pushin N Line
Tam Brogdon Detha Yoder Joe & Janice Fostek
ADULT WALKING PONY 1.Roll The Gold 2.Ritz’s Big Dipper 3.The Dixie Line
Thorsport, Inc. Jim & Heidi McWilliams Dr. John Lay
TRAIL PLEASURE 1.Extra Cash Bonus 2.Contemporary Jazz 3.Struck By Cupid
Shirley Basehore Anne & Nancy Evans Spinelli & Mikolajczyk
YOUTH LITE SHOD 1.My Sophia 2.Commands Big Money 3.Critical Condition
Jennifer Batts Kathleen Burroughs Glenda Kirkland
YOUTH PLANTATION 1.Nuclear Weapon 2. She’s In The Mix 2. The Olympic Title 3.Disturbia
Andee Patton Linda Arnold Andee Patton Darren Gray
Page 66 / The Scoop
Detha Yoder Bill & Jannie Chapman Bill Williams
YEARLING AMATEUR/YOUTH 1.Miss San Diego Jessie Dotson Jr. 2.Hey Pretty Girl Baum, Jones & Richards 3.Dreams Little Dream Hurley & Johnston 3. Designer’s Blast of Color Phyllis Langley AMATEUR LITE SHOD 1.Bad News Flashy Cash 1. A Titan 2.Jose’s Perfecto 3.A Mountain Jazz
Rosalee Manning Lori Snyder Lowe Dr. Jim & Dodi Speece Jim & Debbie Nichols
AMATEUR PLANTATION PLEASURE 1.Extra Classic Mag Ranft 2.Lined Up At the Ritz Rowan & Nichols 3.Sure Cash At The Ritz Lisa Baum WESTERN LITE SHOD 1.Allen All Around 2.Paroled With Silver 3.Jose Loco
Lee & Linda Ritter Sharon Rice Jessica Hlebak
WESTERN PLANTATION PLEASURE 1.Red Sunchip Amy Spinelli 2.Magicians’ Encore Katy Tanner 3.Plea Bargain J. W. & Jo Ann Morgan
AMATEUR OWNED & TRAINED 1.High Jacked Lisa Baum 2.Gold Poison Bert Head 3.Push In Command Rick Compton Family AMATEUR (CANTER) 1.Lord Stanley 2.I’m Copperfield 3.The Pusher’s Generator
Thorsport, Inc. Rick Compton Kendra Myers
PRO-AM 1.He’s A Superstar General Dr. Jim Gore 2.Dollars Bright Star Bill & Jannie Chapman 3.A Private Benjamin Detha Yoder NON TIMED VERSATAILITY 1.Rebelation Linda Starnes 2.Victory Trip Linda Starnes 3.Enchanter’s MG Jo Boucher NOVICE PERFORMANCE 1.Knock ‘Em Dead 2.Dollars Bright Star 3.Reservation On Line
Bill & Jannie Chapman Jannie Chapman Amanda Odom
PARK PERFORMANCE 1.High And Mighty Maxx 2.Ain’t He Grande 3.Ninety Yards
Jo Ann Dowell Phyllis Heppenstall Mr. & Mrs. Charles Brantley
JUNIOR PLANTATION 1.Briden Lily Herchenroeder 2.Rowdy Relation Dick Baer 3.Vindictive Color Cynthia Dickinson JUNIOR TRAIL PLEASURE 1.Ferdinand Jim Leek & Maggie Moore 2.Daddy’s Cash Donnie Headrick 3.He’s Some Kind of Dangerous Jennifer Batts AMATEUR OWNED & TRAINED COUNTRY PLEASURE 1.Princess Power Terri Smith 2.Coolest Girl In Town Leek & Moore 3.Mikimoto Pearl Adams & Howard AMATEUR OWNED & TRAINED TRAIL PLEASURE 1.Simply Shocking Katie Tanner 2.Malibu Rum Grace Cozart 3.Jose’s Fire Cracker Wayne Westbrook AMATEUR OWNED & TRAINED LITE SHOD 1.Gimme Solidarity Angie Runnels 2.Dangerous Willie Hill & Moore 3.Olympic Skywalker Chris & Laurie Coats OPEN RACKING 1. Miss Sugar Kane Steve & Sharon Rice 2. Command the Storm Steve & Sharon Rice 3. Adonnis Loose Goose Thomas Gossard
NOVICE PLEASURE 1.You’ve Been Warned 2.I’m Orion 3.Kool Fortune
Kline & Solari Tammy Steinbrecker Burton & Grider
SHOWMANSHIP _- YOUTH 1.Morgan Hodge 2.Madison Drew 3.Rachel Cowles 3. Carolina Carraway
AMATEUR LADIES 1.A Private Benjamin 2.Silver Shiraz 3.Dollars Bright Star
Detha Yoder Carol Canerday Jannie Chapman
SHOWMANSHIP - ADULT 1.Sarah Beth Arnold 2.Jennifer Batts 3.Linda Starnes
WHOA Hight Point Banquet
WEANLING FILLIES 1. Black Strokes Vengeance Kline & Mesimer 2. Ms. Jose Walks Again Tommy & Sister Milligan 3. She Mo Rowdy Harlinsdale Farm
AMATEUR TWO-YEAR OLD 1.This Is Jazz Lisa Baum 2.The Dixie Sky Tommy & Sister Milligan 3.The Jubilee Line Jim & Heidi McWilliams
WEANLING COLTS 1.Double Martini Howard & Beth Henderson 2.Emmitt Smith 22 Roger Richards 3.Absinthe Michelle Cranford
AMATEUR THREE-YEAR OLD 1.Paroled From Hardtime Tommy & Sister Milligan 2.The American Ride Dr. Jim Gore 3.Five Stars Jazzman Henry Metcalf
YEARLING FILLIES 1.Hey Pretty Girl Baum, Jones & Richards 2.The Lady Pearl Ella Kline 3.Moto Moto Michelle Cranford
AMATEUR FOUR-YEAR OLD 1.I’m A Title One Jerry Myatt 2.Dr. Dr. Give Me The News Lisa Baum 3.Lipstick and Lead Lisa Baum
YEARLING COLTS 1.Seminole Win Kline & Mesimer 2.I Am GQ Lisa Baum 3.Sweep Away Diego Jones & Rosbury
TIMED VERSATILITY 1.Rebelation 2.Enchanters MG 3.The Masked Phantom
AMATEUR FIVE-YEAR OLD 1.Command On Parole Crawford Colts 2.Defending The Title Jerry Myatt 3.Memphis Mafia Gail Walling
YOUTH WALKING PONIES 1.He’s Primetime Cortner & Smith 2.Ultra Copy’s Dark Shadow Andy Rippy Family 2. ACC Rick Compton
EQUITATION YOUTH 1.Morgan Hodge 2.Carolina Carraway 3.Brooklyn Watkins
SPOTTED 1. Walk Like Mick Jagger 2. Mista Peanut 3. He Owns the Night
ADULT EQUITATION 1.Michael Boucher 2.Jennifer Batts 3.Allison Thorson
PLANTATION LITE SHOD 1.R B Banners Dixie Belle Marilynne Macleod 2.J J’s Red Bull Zack & Jessica Parsons 3.A Mountain Jazz Jim & Debbie Nichols
NON SPECIFIED PLEASURE 1. Godiva’s Royal Princess Barbara Whitten 2. Stars Aligned Ernestine Parrott 3. Counts Last Dollar Betty Temple
PLANTATION PLEASURE 1.Extra Classic Mag Ranft 2.Lined Up At The Ritz Nichols & Rowan 3.Jazz By Moonlight Jo Ann Palazzo
WALKING MARES & GELDINGS 1.PGA Lisa Baum 2.Miss Midnight Rider Phyllis Heppenstall 3.Trouble On The Line Hannah McCurdy
CLASSIC PARK PLEASURE 1.Carbons Triple Coin Steve & Sharon Rice 2.Allen’s Heart Throb David & Beth Lamb 3.Armed Angelina Bill Reed JUNIOR AMATEUR PLANTATION PLEASURE 1.Title Bout S & P LLC
ALL DAY PLEASURE 1.Watch Me Roll 2.Enchanters MG 3.Banner Headlines
Dana Drew Jo Boucher Martha Child
JUNIOR LITE SHOD 1.Rowdy Rose 2.Blessed Is The Cash 3.Jose’s Cash Doctor
Dick Baer Phyllis Brumagen Gladney & Martocci
Linda Starnes Jo Boucher Catherine Starnes
Tomi Chittum Dana Drew Debbie Smothers
JUNIOR AMATEUR LITE SHOD 1. Frio Dinero Martin & Dean 2.Gimme Solidarity Angela Runnels 3. José’s Cash Doctor Gladney & Martocci 3. José’s Pretty Lady Martha Child 3. Roscoe Jenkins Susan Coleman
YOUTH NON SPECIFIED PLEASURE 1.My Magic Dollar Ava Peapenberg 2.Generals Sparkling Image Craig & Jennifer Donze 3.Dee Jays Morning Angel Margaret Wittkopp
JUNIOR COUNTRY PLEASURE 1. Jazz King’s Sleeper Kimberly Coult 2. I’m AK 47 Darren Gray 3. Trouble’s Touch of Gold Steve Ponder
THREE-YEAR OLD OPEN 1.Reservation On Line 2.Wired and Lined 3.The Iron Door
AMATEUR OWNED & TRAINED ALL DAY PLEASURE 1. Sundrop’s Sassafras Stephanie Richardson 2. Pantera Leek & Moore 3. Little Bit of Coppertop Steve & Sharon Perry
Amanda Odom Jerry & Kathy Graves Ridgemont Farm
YOUTH 17 & UNDER 1.Hot Texas Salsa Jill & Thomas Derickson 2.Heza War Horse Robert Cortner 3.Be Cool Rick Compton Family
WALKING HORSE CHAMPIONSHIP 1.Ritz’s Renegade Kimberly Coult 2.Gin’s Who Dat Carol Canerday 3.I’m Copperfield Rick Compton Family
YOUTH 11 & UNDER 1.Command at Sunrise 2.Joses’ Jazzy Spirit 3.Versace’s Dollar
SPORTSMANSHIP AWARD Emily Cotten and Whitlei Green
Fisher & Way Andee Patton Rick Compton Family
MEMBER OF THE YEAR Steve Brown
VERSATILITY HIGH POINT HORSE OF THE YEAR Rebelation Linda Starnes HALTER HIGH POINT HORSE OF THE YEAR Seminole Win Kline & Mesimer PLEASURE HIGH POINT HORSE OF THE YEAR Watch Me Roll Dana Drew PERFORMANCE HIGHT POINT HORSE OF THE YEAR Paroled From Hard Time Tommy & Sister Milligan WHOA QUEST WHOA QUEST: YOUTH FLAT SHOD DIVISION (321 Riders) 1. Morgan Hodge 2. Grace Cozart 3. Ashley Gray 4. Kaitlyn Rippy 5. Madison Drew 6. Carolina Carraway 7. Kayla Baucom 8. Whitlei Green 9. Brooklynn Watkins 10. Emily Cotten 10. Ashlyn Carlson WHOA QUEST: AMATEUR FLAT SHOD DIVISION (1,428 Riders) 1. Maggie Moore 2. Jennifer Batts 3. Grace Cozart 4. Morgan Hodge 5. Kimberly Coult 6. Jo Boucher 7. Katie Tanner 8. Dr. Jack Kwok 9. Tami Steinbrecher 10. Allison Thorson WHOA: QUEST YOUTH PERFORMANCE DIVISON (153 Riders) 1. Robert Cortner 2. Andee Patton 3. Kaitlyn Rippy 4. Jordan Dempsey 5. Harper Grider 6. Kayla Baucom 7. Elaina Fisher 8. Mary Francis Way 9. Hannah McCurdy 10. Whitlei Green WHOA QUEST: AMATEUR PERFORMANCE DIVISION (953 Riders) 1. Jannie Chapman 2. Sister Milligan 3. Detha Yoder 4. Lisa Baum 5. Allison Thorson 6. Dr. Jim Baum 7. Kenny Compton 8. Bill Williams 9. Heidi McWilliams 10. Gail Walling
The Scoop / Page 67
Page 68/ The Scoop