Iowa Capital Dispatch
December 11, 2025
A federal judge has ruled federal animal-welfare inspectors can no longer conduct “courtesy visits” at dog-breeding operations while allowing violations to go unreported.
The ruling could have major implications for animal-welfare inspections in Iowa, which is home to roughly 265 federally licensed dog breeders and dealers — more than any other state except Missouri, Ohio and Indiana.
The ruling was handed down recently as part of a federal lawsuit filed four years ago in the District of Columbia by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals against the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
SUBSCRIBE
The lawsuit questions the legality of the APHIS’ formal “Customer Service Policy” that the ASPCA says treats puppy mills, dog-breeding operations and dealers not as regulated entities but as “customers” of the federal agency.
As part of that policy, one of the rules APHIS put in place instructed inspectors to omit from their reports any violations that were self-reported by breeders or dealers. That particular rule, along with a few others, was rolled back after being challenged in the courts by animal-welfare groups.
APHIS, however, left in place two rules that the ASPCA has fought to have set aside.
The first of those is the Veterinary Care Rule that has enabled APHIS inspectors to find that breeders and dealers are “in compliance” with federal rules even when inspectors have documented current violations of regulations. That particular rule has enabled APHIS to renew the licenses of breeders while concurrently citing them for violations.
In his Oct. 29, 2025, ruling, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper found the Veterinary Care Rule to be lawful and within APHIS’ policy-making discretion.
Judge says Courtesy Visits Rule is unlawful
The second rule challenged as part of the ASPCA lawsuit, which has been in place since 2015, is the Courtesy Visits Rule, which stipulates that inspectors can engage in “educational” discussions with breeders and dealers about regulatory violations to foster improved relations between the inspectors and the businesses they regulate.
Court records show that for years, APHIS instructed its inspectors to refrain from documenting any violations they observe during courtesy visits. In 2023, however, Congress approved legislation that stated federal funds could not be used to pay for any APHIS activities that encourage or allow the “non-recording of observed violations.”
As a result, APHIS then instructed its inspectors that while they were still expected to “not document the results of the walk-through or review during a courtesy visit,” such a visit would switch to a formal inspection if any “direct noncompliance items” — defined as critical violations resulting in current harm to an animal — were observed. In such cases, the inspectors were then instructed to document all violations they observed.
In his ruling, Judge Cooper sided with the ASPCA in finding that the Courtesy Visits Rule, even as it now stands, is unlawful given the ban on any activities that result in observed violations going unreported.
“Because the Court Visits Rule permits — in fact, directs — inspectors to ignore instances of noncompliance unless and until they notice a direct noncompliance item, the rule cannot be squared with (the 2023 law’s) text,” Cooper ruled. “When an inspector sets out for a courtesy visit, she does not know whether she will observe a violation. What she does know, however, is that she is permitted — indeed, instructed — not to record most non-compliances she sees. Even before entering the regulated facility, then, the inspector is already being paid to engage in conduct that is squarely prohibited.”
In his ruling, Cooper cited not just the text of the law, but its legislative history, which was based on a U.S. House committee report in which members of Congress stated they were “concerned about the steep decline in enforcement related to violations of the Animal Welfare Act.”
Cooper noted that Congress had expressed, in writing, a desire to “ensure there is no use of ‘teachable moments’ or any similar program that obscures findings during inspections.” Cooper stated that federal records dating back to 2019 show “growing congressional frustration with APHIS’ nonrecording of violations both during and adjacent to official inspections.”
As part of its lawsuit, the ASPCA had also argued the entire concept of courtesy visits was unlawful in that it involved APHIS offering breeders free, taxpayer-funded “consultation services and immunity for entire classes of violations.”
Cooper sided with the government on this issue, finding that the law doesn’t prohibit all forms of nonpunitive, educational efforts undertaken by federal inspectors. “APHIS’ efforts to educate dealers about their regulatory obligations as a way to increase compliance is reasonably related to a core purpose of the Animal Welfare Act,” Cooper stated in his ruling.
APHIS did not respond Thursday to calls from the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
SUPPORT
Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.
