Only five civil fines were issued in the 14 months after the Jarkesy ruling. That's not a relaxation of enforcement — it's a structural shift. Official Warnings now form the permanent record that leads to license suspension, revocation, and DOJ referral.
After the Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, many in the regulated community interpreted the landscape as a relaxation of enforcement — fewer civil fines, less financial risk. The data appears to support that impression: in the 14 months following the ruling, only a handful of civil monetary penalties were issued under the Animal Welfare Act. On the surface, it looks like enforcement softened.
That interpretation is dangerous, and it misunderstands what actually happened.
The Jarkesy decision did not eliminate APHIS's enforcement authority. It constrained one mechanism — the in-house administrative penalty process — by requiring certain penalties to be pursued in federal court with the protections of a jury trial. In response, APHIS did not stop enforcing. It shifted the primary instrument of enforcement from civil fines to the Official Warning.
An Official Warning is not a slap on the wrist. It is a formal, documented finding of noncompliance that becomes part of a facility's permanent regulatory record. It is not expunged. It is referenced in future inspections. It is cited in license renewal decisions. And — critically — it establishes the pattern of noncompliance that supports license suspension, revocation, and referral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
The structural shift is this: under the old model, a fine was a discrete event — you paid it, and it was largely behind you. Under the current model, an Official Warning is an accumulating liability. Each warning adds to the documented record. The question is no longer 'will I be fined for this inspection?' but 'is this inspection going to add to the record that eventually costs me my license?'
For licensees, the practical implications are clear. First, treat every Official Warning as a serious matter, not a minor footnote. Request a hearing when you have a defensible position. Second, understand your complete enforcement history — not just recent inspections, but the full record APHIS will reference. Third, recognize that the path from warning to revocation is shorter than many operators assume, especially when complaints from third parties add pressure.
The post-Jarkesy period is not a enforcement holiday. It is a change in the instrument. The instrument that now drives consequences — the documented pattern of noncompliance — is more cumulative and more lasting than the fine it replaced.