How do federal laws address bestiality and do they override state gaps?

1. Federal statutes: narrow coverage, military exception

Scholars compiling state-by-state tables note that “the legality of bestiality is not controlled from the federal level,” and point to the military sodomy clause as the only clear federal legal provision directly addressing sexual conduct with animals for people subject to military law ^[1]. That means, in practice, civilians are governed almost entirely by state criminal codes on bestiality or by related statutes (animal cruelty, obscenity, child-protection laws) where explicit bestiality bans are absent ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The state patchwork: largely criminalized but with notable gaps

Most states have explicit criminal statutes banning sexual assault of animals, with penalties varying from misdemeanors to felonies and with aggravators—such as involving minors or repeat offenses—escalating punishment in some jurisdictions ^{[1] [3]}. However, monitoring groups report that as of mid-2025 five states—Hawaii, Kentucky, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wyoming—had no explicit bestiality statute, leaving prosecutors to rely on animal-cruelty or other related laws in those jurisdictions ^[4]. State lawmaking has been active: Wyoming, for example, passed a ban after a 2020 incident and set penalties including possible jail time and fines ^[5].

3. Federal enforcement proposals: capability, not automatic preemption

The Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act of 2025, as introduced, would establish an Animal Cruelty Crimes Section in DOJ to focus and coordinate federal enforcement of animal-cruelty laws under federal jurisdiction and to report annually on charges and convictions ^[2]. That proposal signals congressional interest in federal-level attention to animal sexual assault, but the bill’s text describes creation of enforcement infrastructure rather than a direct override of state criminal codes; federal prosecutions would still be constrained to offenses within federal jurisdiction or tied to federal statutes ^[2]. Advocacy groups pushing for uniform bans often frame federal action as a remedy for state gaps, while civil-society and federalism advocates—reflected in broader AG activity on state regulation—warn against broad federal preemption of state police powers ^{[4] [6]}.

4. Do federal laws override state gaps? Short answer: no—in practice, not automatically

Current federal law does not sweep away state authority over criminalizing bestiality; civilians are prosecuted under state law where it exists and under adjacent state statutes where explicit prohibitions do not ^{[1] [3]}. A new federal enforcement office would enable DOJ to bring federal charges when a federal statute applies or when a federal nexus exists, but it would not, by itself, erase or preempt state statutes or their absence without additional federal criminal legislation or constitutional grounds for preemption—steps not reflected in the sources provided ^[2]. Advocacy groups like the Animal Legal Defense Fund highlight remaining state gaps and press for statutory change, which explains why both state legislatures and federal drafters have been active on the issue ^{[4] [7]}.

5. Competing narratives and political currents

Supporters of federal involvement argue it fills enforcement gaps and coordinates investigations crossing state lines or involving complex cruelty networks, while critics caution that broad federal criminalization risks encroaching on traditional state criminal-law authority and that targeted state reforms may be faster and more democratically accountable ^{[2] [6]}. The reporting shows advocacy pressure and recent legislative movement at both state and federal levels, but the available sources do not provide a definitive account of how federal prosecutions would be prioritized in the absence of specific federal charges or how DOJ discretion would interact with state prosecutions if the Act became law ^{[2] [4]}.