How do federal laws in the United States address bestiality compared with state statutes?
Executive summary
Federal law does not set a standalone nationwide criminal ban on bestiality; instead, nearly every U.S. state has its own antibestiality statute or relies on animal‑cruelty or related laws, and only West Virginia remained without a specific ban as of 2024–2025 [1] [2]. Congress has recently advanced federal attention to animal cruelty through proposed legislation (Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act of 2025) that would create a DOJ Animal Cruelty Crimes Section, but that bill does not itself establish a federal bestiality crime in the text excerpts provided [3].
1. Federal silence, state action
There is no comprehensive federal criminal statute that directly governs bestiality for the civilian population; the primary national references are limited, with one federal criminal provision mentioned only within the military code’s sodomy provision [1]. Consequently, the regulation of sexual contact with animals has been left to state legislatures, producing a patchwork of laws and penalties across the country [1] [4].
2. How states fill the gap: nearly-uniform prohibition
State responses have converged: most states now prohibit sexual contact with animals either through dedicated antibestiality statutes or by folding the conduct into animal‑cruelty, obscenity, or child‑protection codes. By the mid‑2020s, 49 states plus D.C. had some statutory provision banning sexual assault of animals, with West Virginia repeatedly identified as the last state lacking a clear ban until it addressed related statutes [2] [5]. Scholarly and advocacy summaries indicate roughly 31 states historically labeled the offense in specific ways (misdemeanor vs felony), and many states have recently updated laws to close loopholes or raise penalties [4] [1].
3. Variation in severity and coverage
State laws vary sharply. In some jurisdictions bestiality is treated as a misdemeanor in typical cases, with the statutory severity jumping to felony where aggravating factors exist — for example, when the act involves coercion of minors or the defendant has prior convictions [1]. Maps and academic summaries show a mixture of misdemeanor and felony designations across the states, and enforcement experience and case law remain limited compared with the statutory breadth [4] [1].
4. The military exception
The one identified federal criminal touchpoint is the military’s sodomy provision, which criminalizes “unnatural carnal copulation” for persons subject to the military code, meaning military personnel can face federal (military) prosecution for sexual acts that include bestiality under that rubric [1]. Available sources do not detail how often or in what circumstances the military has prosecuted bestiality specifically; that level of enforcement detail is not found in current reporting [1].
5. Recent federal legislative developments but not a federal ban
Congressional activity indicates growing federal interest in animal cruelty generally: the Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act of 2025 (H.R.1477) would create a dedicated Animal Cruelty Crimes Section at DOJ, emphasizing enforcement capacity and noting links between animal cruelty and other violent crime [3]. The bill’s findings stress the significance of animal‑cruelty harms and seek institutional tools for federal enforcement, but the provided text excerpts do not show a new, standalone federal bestiality offense being created in that bill [3].
6. Why states acted: history and gaps
Historically, antibestiality provisions were often embedded in older “crime against nature” or sodomy statutes; over time states updated codes to treat bestiality as animal sexual assault or cruelty rather than a public‑morals offense [1] [4]. Advocacy groups and legal trackers document a wave of recent state enactments and amendments to close prosecutorial loopholes and harmonize protections for animals [2] [1].
7. Competing perspectives and implications
Advocates for uniform federal action argue that federal resources and specialized enforcement could help prosecute interstate or particularly aggravated animal‑sexual‑assault cases; proponents point to links between animal cruelty and other violent crime as a policy rationale [3]. Opponents or skeptics—implied by the current state of the law—point out that criminal jurisdiction traditionally resides with states and that states have already enacted statutes covering the conduct [1] [2]. The tension is between centralized federal capacity and state primacy in criminal law [3] [1].
Limitations: This analysis draws only on the supplied sources. Specific counts of states and precise statutory texts vary over time; available sources summarize trends and legislative action but do not provide a complete, current table of each state statute’s wording or enforcement statistics [1] [4].