REVIEWED JULY 2019

State preemption map ::

State preemption laws that bar local governments from enacting breed-specific ordinances are far from universal or absolute. In this section we explain each state and its associated designation.

breed-specific, states with preemption, mixed preemption, home rule, no preemption

Learn about the history of these preemption laws and states that have rejected recent bills.

Non-preemption states

Non-preemption states respect local control and believe that local government officials are best suited to determine their own animal control and public safety policies. Municipal jurisdictions in these states are free to enact breed-specific ordinances for the purposes of public health and safety and animal welfare. Learn more about the different types of breed-specific ordinances that cities and counties adopt to protect public health in our Breed-Specific Legislation FAQ.

States that Protect Local Breed-Specific Ordinances
State	Status	State	Status
Alabama	No state preemption	Missouri	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012
Arkansas	No state preemption	Montana	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012
Alaska	No state preemption	Nebraska	No state preemption
Georgia	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012	New Hampshire	No state preemption
Hawaii	No state preemption	New Mexico	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012
Idaho	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012	North Carolina	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012
Indiana	No state preemption	North Dakota	No state preemption
Iowa	No state preemption	Ohio	No state preemption
Kansas	No state preemption	Oregon	No state preemption
Kentucky	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012	Tennessee	No state preemption
Louisiana	No state preemption	Vermont	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012
Maryland	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012	West Virginia	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012
Michigan	No state preemption; defeated preemption bill(s) since 2012	Wisconsin	No state preemption
Mississippi	No state preemption	Wyoming	No state preemption

Mandatory exemption states

In 2019, Washington state passed the first mandatory exemption law. The legislation requires municipalities with existing or new breed-specific laws to provide an exemption for the owners of regulated breeds if their dog passes the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen (CGC) test or its equivalent. In order to maintain this exemption, the dog must be retested every two years. The new "compromise" law is largely based on the city of Pasco's exemption (§ 6.05.330 (6)).1

States Governed by Mandatory Exemption Laws
Key	State	Adopted	Title and Section	Statute
	Washington	2019	Not codified. House Bill 1026	The city or county must maintain a "reasonable process for exempting any dog from breed-based regulations or a breed ban if the dog passes the American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen test" or its equivalent, and dogs that pass are "exempt from breed-based regulations for a period of at least two years." The city of Pasco declares pit bulls "potentially dangerous." Below is their exemption: "An animal that is classified as 'potentially dangerous' under the provisions of PMC 6.05.010 may be exempted from the permit requirements of subsection (5) of this section, provided such animal has passed the Canine Good Citizen (CGC) test of the American Kennel Club (AKC), as administered by the Poundmaster or the Animal Control Authority, and received the appropriate certificate from AKC. Such animal shall be retested and passed at least once every two years in order to maintain this exemption."

Mixed-preemption and home rule states

States governed by a mixed-preemption breed-specific law often allow city and county breed-specific spay and neuter ordinances. In states with strong home rule provisions, such as Colorado, home rule cities and counties can supersede and fully mute state-level laws prohibiting local breed-specific ordinances. This is why the City and County of Denver, the City of Aurora and other home rule jurisdictions in Colorado can enact and enforce breed-specific pit bull ordinances.

States Governed by Mixed-Preemption Laws and Home Rule
State	Adopted	Title and Section	Statute
South Carolina	1988	§ 47-3-710. Regulation of Dangerous Animals	"An animal is not a 'dangerous animal' solely by virtue of its breed or species."
Colorado	2004	§ 18-9-204.5. Unlawful Ownership of Dangerous Dog	Statute is completely void in home rule jurisdictions; statute is also specific only to the regulation of "dangerous dogs."
California	20052	§ 122331. Health and Safety Code	"(a) Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances."

“Likely” mixed-preemption states

The following states have a preemption law that prohibits local governments from declaring a specific dog breed "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous," but the state law does not appear to prohibit jurisdictions from adopting breed-specific spay and neuter ordinances. These state laws are currently untested in this area. We encourage jurisdictions to test them. The idea that these preemption laws are airtight, particularly in the area of pit bull sterilization ordinances, is a fallacy.

States "Likely" Governed by Mixed-Preemption Laws
State	Adopted	Title and Section	Statute
Minnesota	1989	§ 347.51. Dangerous Dogs; Registration	"A statutory or home rule charter city, or a county, may not adopt an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed of the dog. Ordinances inconsistent with this subdivision are void." See recent "proposed" ordinance in Rochester by the city attorney.
Oklahoma	1991	§ 46. Local Regulation of Dangerous Dogs	"Potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs may be regulated through local, municipal and county authorities, provided the regulations are not Breed-specific. Nothing in this act shall prohibit such local governments from enforcing penalties for violation of such local laws."
Texas	1991	§ 822.047. Local Regulation of Dangerous Dogs	"A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements or restrictions: (1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and (2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter."
Virginia	19933	§ 3.2-6540. Control of Dangerous Dogs	"No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited."
Nevada	2013	§ 202.500. Dangerous or Vicious Dogs	"A local authority shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog."
Delaware	2017	§ 1327. Maintaining a dangerous animal	"No dog shall be considered dangerous or potentially dangerous solely because of the dog's breed or perceived breed."

Grandfather law states

Currently, only Florida has a state preemption law prohibiting local governments from enacting breed-specific laws that also grandfathered in pre-existing ordinances, mainly the Miami-Dade County pit bull ban that was enacted in 1989. No other municipal jurisdictions in Florida are allowed to enact or enforce breed-specific laws. In August 2012, during a Miami-Dade County primary vote, citizens voted to keep their longstanding pit bull ban by a 63% to 37% margin.4

States with Grandfathered Breed-Specific Laws
Key	State	Adopted	Title and Section	Statute
	Florida	1990	767.14. Additional local restrictions authorized.	"provided that no such regulation is specific to breed and that the provisions of this act are not lessened by such additional regulations or requirements. This section does not apply to any local ordinance adopted prior to October 1, 1990."

Preemption states

Preemption states have laws barring local governments from enacting breed-specific laws. Notably, both Illinois and Rhode Island are untested home rule states. In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court confirmed the authoritative power of home rule ordinances. In Pennsylvania, the preemption statute specifically excludes county governments. Again, even in preemption states, these laws are not always absolute, especially in states with strong home rule provisions.

Preemption States Prohibiting Local Ordinances
State	Adopted	Title and Section
New Jersey	1989	4:19-36. Supersedure of local law, ordinance or regulation.
Pennsylvania5	1990	1982 Act 225. Section 507-A. Local ordinances.
Maine	1991	§ 3950. Local regulations.
New York	1997	§ 107 : NY Code. Section 107: Application.
Illinois6	2003	510 ILCS 5/24. Chapter 8, paragraph 374.
Massachusetts	2012	Section 157. Nuisance or dangerous dogs.
Connecticut	2013	Section 7-148. Scope of municipal powers.
Rhode Island7	2013	§ 4-13.1-16. Prohibition of Breed-specific regulation.
South Dakota	2014	40-34-16. Ordinance specific as to breed of dog prohibited.
Utah	2014	Title 18 Chapter 2. Regulation of dogs by a municipality.
Arizona8	2016	§ 9-499.04. Animal control officers; appointment; authority; regulation of dogs; powers and duties. § 11-1005. Powers and duties of board of supervisors.

Rental properties

There is a range of conflicting state preemption maps on the Internet showing which states do and do not allow local governments to enact breed-specific laws. As illustrated above, however, there are often serious variations in these state preemption laws and very few are airtight. Furthermore, none of these maps show the upwards of a million private rental properties governed by breed-specific leases across all 50 states that are entirely unaffected by these state preemption laws.9

House Bill 1026 was first introduced by Rep. Sherry Appleton, who has owned both pit bulls and rottweilers, in 2014. In its first version, the bill was a 100% preemptive -- it prohibited cities and counties from enacting breed-specific laws and eliminated existing breed-specific laws. That bill failed in 2014 and 2015. In 2016, Appleton was forced to accept a "substitute bill" (1018-S) that eliminated the full preemption. That bill failed in 2016, 2017 and 2018, as did its counterpart introduced in the Senate in 2017 and 2018. The version that did pass in 2019 had to clarify even further that the bill did not preempt jurisdictions from enacting breed-specific laws; it simply required the mandatory exemption. The city of Pasco was present at the hearings to defend their ordinance, which already had an exemption process. So, we have long referred to Appleton's bill as a "compromise" bill.
California enacted a full state preemption law in 1989. In 2005, part of it was repealed to allow for breed-specific sterilization ordinances. San Francisco enacted the country's first mandatory pit bull sterilization ordinance in 2005.
The state preemption law in Virginia was enacted between 1990 and 1993. Not all states have complete legislative archival histories online. Even when they do, the adoption dates can be difficult to determine.
Miami-Dade County Elections, 2012 Election Results (miamidade.gov) and Final Election Results Miami-Dade County August 14, 2012 (results.enr.clarityelections.com)
The Pennsylvania state preemption law excludes counties.
Illinois is an untested home rule state.
Rhode Island is an untested home rule state. Learn more: Haas, Terrance P. (2006) "Constitutional Home Rule in Rhode Island," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 11: Iss. 3, Article 3.
The anti-BSL preemption in Arizona Senate Bill 1248, drafted by Best Friends Animal Society, was hidden in this anti-animal welfare bill that banned local puppy mill ordinances. In a statewide preemption strike on local control, cities saw their puppy mill ordinances stripped away, while Best Friends celebrated a "pit bull" victory at the cost of animal welfare protections across the entire state.
Multifamily Rental Properties: Would You Believe 2.25 Million?, by Paul Emrath, Eye On Housing, March 29, 2013 (eyeonhousing.org)