Is sexual activity with animals illegal in my country or state?
Executive summary
U.S. criminal law on sexual activity with animals (commonly called bestiality) is mostly handled by state statutes, not federal law; recent reporting and advocacy note that most states ban it but at least one — West Virginia — lacked a specific statutory ban as of a January 2025 Animal Legal Defense Fund report [1]. Federal legislation and enforcement attention has increased: Congress considered the Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act of 2025 which would expand federal capacity to prosecute animal-cruelty crimes, though bestiality remains principally a state matter in current sources [2] [3].
1. How the law is divided: state primacy and a narrow federal role
Criminal prohibitions on sex with animals are not centrally regulated by the U.S. federal criminal code; the Legal Information Project and the Animal Legal & Historical Center emphasize that legality is governed state-by-state, with only narrow federal coverage historically — for example, military code provisions — and broader federal involvement would come through new proposals like H.R.1477, the Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act of 2025, which seeks to create a dedicated DOJ unit to enforce federal animal-cruelty laws [3] [2].
2. What most states do: explicit bans are now the norm
Advocacy and legal-tracking groups report that a large majority of states have enacted statutes expressly criminalizing sexual activity with animals, with multiple states updating cruelty codes or adding sexual-assault provisions over recent years; the Animal Legal & Historical Center’s table documents these state-by-state statutes and notes modern trends toward placing bestiality in criminal cruelty or sexual-assault chapters rather than antiquated “crime against nature” language [3].
3. The notable exception: West Virginia as of early 2025
The Animal Legal Defense Fund reported in January 2025 that West Virginia was “the only remaining state that doesn’t ban bestiality” under its statutory scheme, highlighting the uneven patchwork of state-level protections and prompting advocacy for legislative change [1]. Available sources do not mention whether West Virginia later enacted a ban after that report.
4. Ongoing legislative and advocacy pressure for uniform bans
There are active campaigns and public petitions calling for a nationwide ban and stiffer penalties, with advocates citing legal inconsistencies and urging federal or uniform state action; a November 2024 Change.org petition framed the problem as “dangerous loopholes” and cited that about 46 states had explicit prohibitions, urging Congress or states to close gaps [4]. These are advocacy positions, not federal law — they reflect public pressure and the policy argument for national consistency [4].
5. What new federal measures would do — H.R.1477 as context
The Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act of 2025 (H.R.1477) proposes to establish an Animal Cruelty Crimes Section within DOJ to better enforce federal animal-cruelty statutes and coordinate prosecutions; its findings link animal cruelty to broader harms and contemplate bolstering federal investigative resources, but the bill as described in the congressional text does not itself rewrite every state criminal code, so its practical effect on bestiality prosecutions would depend on the bill’s final language, jurisdictional reach, and whether federal statutes are amended or applied [2].
6. Legal nuance: other statutes may reach conduct even without explicit bestiality laws
The Animal Legal & Historical Center notes that in states lacking explicit bestiality language, prosecutors have sometimes relied on child-protection statutes, obscenity laws, or general animal-cruelty provisions to address sexual abuse of animals, meaning the absence of a named “bestiality” statute does not necessarily create absolute legal immunity [3]. Specific application varies state-by-state and depends on how courts and prosecutors interpret existing codes [3].
7. Areas of disagreement, agenda signals, and limitations of available reporting
Advocacy groups like the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Change.org push for uniform bans and characterize remaining gaps as urgent dangers; legal-tracking projects like the Animal Legal & Historical Center provide state-by-state legal mapping and note historical statutory language differences [1] [4] [3]. Available sources do not provide up-to-the-minute status for every state after January 2025, nor do they report whether H.R.1477 became law or how its adoption would change prosecutions at the state level [1] [2].
8. Practical next steps if you want a specific answer for your state
Use the Animal Legal & Historical Center’s state table to check current statutes for your state, consult your state’s criminal code or legislature website for the latest statute text, or look for recent state legislative updates; for federal developments, follow Congress.gov for H.R.1477’s progress and the Animal Legal Defense Fund for advocacy updates [3] [2] [1]. Available sources do not provide an individualized lookup here, so consult those state/legal resources for definitive, local guidance [3].