FIGHT Act of 2025
Introduced April 10, 2025 · Last action April 10, 2025
Plain English Summary
This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to expand cockfighting prohibitions by making it illegal to gamble on animal fighting ventures (including broadcasts), to use the postal service or interstate commerce to transport roosters for fighting, and to sponsor or exhibit roosters in fighting events. It also creates a new right for citizens to sue violators in federal court and allows seizure of property used in cockfighting operations.
Who benefits
Animal welfare advocates, civil rights organizations focused on animal cruelty prevention (such as Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, and local animal rescue organizations), and private citizens in jurisdictions with cockfighting activity who seek to enforce anti-cruelty laws. Law enforcement agencies gain investigative authority and property seizure tools.
Who pays / loses
Cockfighting operators and enthusiasts who sponsor, exhibit, or attend fighting events; individuals and organizations that gamble on cockfighting matches; businesses that transport roosters across state lines for fighting purposes; property owners whose land is used for cockfighting operations and subject to civil seizure; states and localities with existing cockfighting cultures where enforcement expands significantly.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Animal welfare organizations, particularly those focused on animal cruelty prevention, have long lobbied for expanded cockfighting prohibitions. Sponsors Senator Robert Kennedy Jr. and Senator Cory Booker are associated with animal welfare advocacy, though specific donor data for this bill is not provided in the legislative text. The bill's financial beneficiaries are enforcement agencies and animal protection nonprofits who receive litigation authority and property seizure mechanisms. The bill imposes costs on cockfighting enterprises, which operate as underground networks in jurisdictions where the practice persists—primarily in rural areas of the South, parts of the Midwest, and immigrant communities with cultural traditions around cockfighting.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Rural communities and specific immigrant and cultural groups where cockfighting has traditional significance, particularly in the American South, parts of Appalachia, the Midwest, and among Filipino, Latin American, and other communities with cultural or historical ties to the practice. Property owners whose land is used for cockfighting face seizure liability. Animal welfare advocates and urban constituencies benefit from strengthened enforcement. Federal law enforcement and U.S. Postal Service gain new enforcement obligations.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill closes loopholes in existing cockfighting prohibitions by criminalizing gambling and interstate transport—activities that currently evade federal enforcement—and empowers citizens to sue, strengthening enforcement. They cite animal cruelty and links between cockfighting and organized crime, gang activity, and illegal gambling. Critics, primarily from cultural and agricultural communities, argue the bill overreaches federal authority into localized cultural practices, uses broad property seizure provisions that exceed typical criminal enforcement, and the private right of action creates frivolous litigation risk. Non-partisan sources (ASPCA, Humane Society) document cockfighting's prevalence in illegal gambling networks and links to other crimes, but quantitative studies on the bill's enforcement impact are limited. The property seizure provision is more expansive than typical animal cruelty statutes and resembles RICO/criminal asset forfeiture frameworks.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, the bill significantly expands federal cockfighting enforcement by criminalizing the financial side of the activity (gambling and transport) and empowering private citizens to initiate litigation. Similar state-level cockfighting bans (all 50 states have criminalized cockfighting since 2007) have resulted in arrests and prosecutions, primarily in rural areas and immigrant communities. The private right of action may generate enforcement activity in jurisdictions where state/local law enforcement has limited resources or political will. Property seizure for cockfighting operations has no direct federal precedent in animal cruelty law, though similar civil forfeiture applies in drug and racketeering cases—outcomes there show both deterrent effects and documented instances of innocent property owners losing assets through over-broad application. Broadcasters of cockfighting (including online platforms) face potential liability if they knowingly air events, which could affect international streaming platforms. The 60-day notice requirement may simply shift enforcement to private litigants rather than government prosecutors.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
Citizen Private Right of Action Without Standing Requirements
Creates a federal private right of action allowing any citizen to sue violators of cockfighting prohibitions in federal court, potentially without traditional standing requirements or need to demonstrate direct injury, which is broader than typical animal welfare enforcement.
AffectsEnables activist groups and individuals with ideological opposition to cockfighting to initiate federal litigation against alleged violators even without personal economic or property harm, potentially overwhelming courts with suits and shifting enforcement from executive agencies to private parties.
Broad Property Seizure Without Conviction
Authorizes seizure of property used in cockfighting operations, potentially including vehicles, real estate, equipment, and funds, with the language suggesting seizure may occur prior to or independent of criminal conviction.
AffectsProperty owners, vehicle owners, and business operators could lose significant assets through civil forfeiture procedures with lower evidentiary standards than criminal convictions, disproportionately affecting rural communities and small-scale farmers if definitions are construed broadly.
Gambling Prohibition Extends to Spectators and Broadcasters
Prohibits gambling on animal fighting ventures 'including broadcasts,' which could criminalize passive participation such as watching paid livestreams or placing bets through internet platforms without directly organizing fights.
AffectsInternet users, streaming service subscribers, and casual bettors in states where cockfighting may have cultural significance could face federal criminal liability for activities that may not be illegal under state law.
Interstate Commerce Clause Preemption of State Authority
Federal prohibition on transporting roosters for fighting via postal service or interstate commerce may implicitly preempt state-level regulatory or permitting schemes, eliminating state discretion over agricultural animal transport regulations.
AffectsStates that may have had alternative regulatory frameworks for roosters or legal cockfighting traditions lose regulatory authority, and agricultural businesses engaged in legal poultry transport could face federal scrutiny if roosters are involved.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (21)
DSen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]DSen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]RSen. McCormick, David [R-PA]RSen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]RSen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]DSen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]DSen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]DSen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]RSen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]RSen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]RSen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]DSen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]RSen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]RSen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]RSen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]DSen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]DSen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]DSen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]DSen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]DSen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]+1 more
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$94,770.2
Finance$12,400
Energy$3,362.05
Healthcare$1,703.8
Agriculture$250
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.