Breed-Specific Legislation by State (2026)

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is any law that bans or restricts dogs by breed or appearance, most often pit bull-type dogs, instead of by what an individual dog has done. In the United States it is almost always local: 20 states bar cities and counties from adopting it, according to the state files on this site checked in October 2026, while the rest leave the question to local governments or to courts.

What counts as breed-specific legislation

A breed-specific law names a breed or type and attaches a rule to it. The rule can be an outright ban, a permit, a muzzle or leash requirement, a liability insurance requirement, or a presumption that every dog of the breed is “dangerous” or “vicious”.

Laws that judge each dog by its behavior are breed-neutral. State dangerous dog laws in force in 2026 work that way: a dog is designated after it bites, attacks or menaces someone, whatever its breed. Many of those statutes say so in terms. Delaware, since 2017, bars any municipal law based on a dog’s breed or perceived breed and forbids declaring a dog dangerous because of breed alone (22 Del. C. § 116) ²².

BSL is different from three things it is often confused with:

Insurance breed lists. A homeowners insurer’s refusal to cover a breed is a private underwriting decision, not a law. 6 states limit it; see dog bite insurance.
Private lease and HOA rules. A landlord’s or condo association’s breed list is a contract term. State preemption statutes usually bind local governments, not private owners.
Federal housing rules. Military and federally assisted housing have their own pet rules, covered below.

States that bar local breed bans

20 states have a statute that stops cities and counties from regulating dogs by breed. The wording varies, but the core is the same.

Connecticut: since 2013, “no municipality shall adopt breed-specific dog ordinances” (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-148) ¹.
Maine: towns may adopt stricter animal-control ordinances but “may not adopt breed-specific ordinances, laws or regulations” (7 M.R.S. § 3950) ²⁵.
Florida: local dog rules may not be “specific to breed, weight, or size” (§ 767.14) ². Older local bans had been grandfathered; HB 941 removed that exception from October 1, 2023, which ended Miami-Dade County’s pit bull ordinance ³.
South Dakota and Utah: both acted in 2014. South Dakota bars any city, county or other local government from enacting, keeping or enforcing a breed-specific ordinance (SDCL 40-34-16) ²⁴. Utah’s § 18-2-101 makes any breed-specific dog ordinance void ²³.
Texas: cities and counties may add dangerous-dog rules only if they are more stringent than state law and not specific to one or several breeds (Health and Safety Code ch. 822) ²⁶.
Virginia: no dog may be found dangerous solely because of its breed, and local ordinances must parallel the state statute (§ 3.2-6540) ²⁷.

The others in this group are Arizona, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. California has one stated exception: local mandatory spay/neuter and breeding rules may be breed-specific.

Colorado and home-rule cities

A preemption statute is only as strong as its reach. Colorado barred municipal and county dangerous-dog rules that are specific to breed in 2004 (C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5(5)) ⁴. Denver, a home-rule city that banned pit bulls from 1989, still admits American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers only with a breed-restricted permit, renewed yearly for three years ⁵. Anyone moving to a home-rule city should read the city code, not only the state statute.

Washington: breed rules with an exemption

Washington took a middle path in 2020. A city or county may not ban a breed, impose breed-specific requirements or declare a dog dangerous because of breed unless it runs an exemption process: any dog that passes the AKC Canine Good Citizen test or an equivalent behavioral test must be exempt for at least two years, with a chance to retest (RCW 16.08.110) ⁶. The state files count Washington as allowing BSL, because breed rules can survive.

States where local breed bans are allowed

In the remaining states no statute stops a city or county from regulating by breed, and several courts have upheld local bans as an ordinary use of the police power.

Kansas: in Hearn v. City of Overland Park (1989), the Kansas Supreme Court upheld an ordinance that classed pit bulls as dangerous animals and required confinement, a leash and muzzle outside, a warning sign and $50,000 of liability insurance, rejecting vagueness, due process and equal protection challenges ⁷.
New Mexico: in Garcia v. Village of Tijeras (1988), the Court of Appeals upheld a village ban on American Pit Bull Terriers ⁸.
Ohio: in Toledo v. Tellings (2007), the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld both the then-state rule classing pit bulls as vicious and Toledo’s local ordinance ⁹. The legislature dropped the breed category from state law in 2012, but local dog-control laws that do not conflict with state law remain possible (R.C. 955.10) ¹⁰.
West Virginia: in State v. Blatt (2015), the Supreme Court of Appeals held that a court must judge the dog’s own behavior before ordering it destroyed, left breed presumptions to the Legislature, and noted a circuit court decision upholding a city pit bull ban ¹¹.

Preemption bills have failed in several of these states. Iowa’s House File 651 passed the House in 2023 and died in the Senate ²⁹. Maryland’s Senate Bill 991 died without a vote in 2014 ¹⁴. Local governments can still change course on their own: Maryland’s Prince George’s County lifted its decades-old pit bull ban through CB-097-2025, effective February 2, 2026, and now requires a $25 special permit and training for formerly banned dogs ¹².

Four jurisdictions are marked unclear in the state files. Hawaii and South Carolina keep breed out of the state dangerous-dog definitions, but no statute expressly bars counties or cities from breed rules ²⁸. New Hampshire has no express ban, and the District of Columbia has no local governments below the Council.

Breed-specific legislation by state

The table gives each state’s rule on local breed-specific laws, with the statute or decision behind it. “Preempted” means a state statute bars cities and counties from regulating by breed.

Breed-specific local laws (state files reviewed October 2026)
State	Breed-specific ordinances	Rule
Alabama	Allowed	No Alabama statute bars breed-specific local laws; Emily's Law defines a dangerous dog "regardless of its breed" and lets cities and counties adopt ordinances that meet at least its minimum standards.
Alaska	Allowed	No Alaska statute bars breed-specific local laws; the state leaves animal control to municipalities, and AS 03.55 defines a vicious dog by conduct, not breed.
Arizona	Banned by state law	Cities and towns may regulate dogs only if the rule is not specific to any breed, and breed may not be considered in vicious-dog or liability findings.
Arkansas	Allowed	No Arkansas statute bars breed-specific city or county laws; HB 1519, which would have banned them, died in the House in 2023.
California	Banned by state law	No city or county dog program may be breed-specific, except mandatory spay/neuter and breeding rules, and no breed may be declared dangerous as such.
Colorado	Banned by state law	Since 2004 state law bars municipal and county dangerous-dog rules that are specific to breed, but home-rule Denver still requires a breed-restricted permit for pit bull-type dogs.
Connecticut	Banned by state law	Since 2013, § 7-148 provides that "no municipality shall adopt breed-specific dog ordinances".
Delaware	Banned by state law	Since 2017, 22 Del. C. § 116 bars municipal laws based on a dog's breed or perceived breed, and no dog may be declared dangerous or potentially dangerous because of breed alone.
District of Columbia	Not settled	The District has no county or city governments below the Council, and its dangerous-dog law judges dogs by behavior, not breed; 1996 emergency acts naming pit bulls and Rottweilers were temporary and lapsed.
Florida	Banned by state law	Local dog rules may not be “specific to breed, weight, or size”, and since October 1, 2023 no older local breed ban survives, which ended Miami-Dade County's pit bull ordinance.
Georgia	Allowed	No state statute bars breed-specific local laws; the dog chapter sets minimum standards and lets counties and cities adopt stricter ordinances.
Hawaii	Not settled	State law says a dog's breed "shall not be considered" in declaring it dangerous, but no statute expressly bars counties from adopting breed-specific ordinances.
Idaho	Allowed	No Idaho statute bars breed-specific ordinances: § 25-2812 sets state minimums and lets cities and counties adopt stricter dangerous-dog definitions if they allow for justified provocation.
Illinois	Banned by state law	Section 24 of the Animal Control Act lets local governments regulate dogs but forbids any regulation, policy or ordinance that is specific to breed, and vicious dogs may not be classified by breed.
Indiana	Allowed	No Indiana statute bars breed-specific local ordinances; a 2022 bill to ban them (Senate Bill 18) died in committee.
Iowa	Allowed	No state law bars breed-specific ordinances: chapter 351 preserves city and county power to restrict dogs, and a 2023 bill to ban breed rules passed the House but died in the Senate.
Kansas	Allowed	No state law bars breed bans; the Kansas Supreme Court upheld Overland Park's pit bull ordinance in Hearn v. City of Overland Park (1989).
Kentucky	Allowed	No Kentucky statute bars breed-specific ordinances; KRS 258.365 keeps local dog ordinances in force if they are not inconsistent with the chapter.
Louisiana	Allowed	No state law bars breed-specific local ordinances; the Village of Fenton banned pit bulls in 2019.
Maine	Banned by state law	Maine towns may adopt stricter animal-control ordinances but "may not adopt breed-specific ordinances, laws or regulations".
Maryland	Allowed	No state statute bars breed-specific local laws; a 2014 bill to forbid them died in the Senate without a vote, and Prince George's County ended its own pit bull ban only on February 2, 2026.
Massachusetts	Banned by state law	Section 157 says no city or town may regulate dogs in a manner specific to breed, and no dog may be declared dangerous because of its breed.
Michigan	Allowed	No Michigan statute bars breed-specific local ordinances; 2023 bills to ban them (HB 5039–5041) never left committee.
Minnesota	Banned by state law	Cities and counties may not regulate dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on breed; such ordinances are void.
Mississippi	Allowed	No Mississippi statute bans breeds or bars breed-specific city or county ordinances; the municipal animal-control power in § 21-19-9 says nothing about breed.
Missouri	Allowed	No Missouri statute in force in October 2026 bars breed-specific city or county ordinances. Section 67.140 only stops local laws that describe pets as anything other than owned property.
Montana	Allowed	No Montana statute bars breed-specific local laws; the county vicious-dog statute defines "vicious" by conduct (biting or attempting to bite without provocation), not breed.
Nebraska	Allowed	State law lets counties, cities and villages adopt dangerous-dog rules "at least as stringent" as the state's and does not bar breed-specific ordinances.
Nevada	Banned by state law	Since AB 110 (2013), no dog may be declared dangerous or vicious based solely on breed, and no county or city may adopt or enforce a breed-based ordinance.
New Hampshire	Not settled	Chapter 466 has no breed-based rule and no express ban on local breed laws; towns may adopt muzzling bylaws only for dogs that are vicious by behavior under RSA 466:31, II(g).
New Jersey	Banned by state law	The Act supersedes any municipal, county or local health board law on vicious or potentially dangerous dogs or "any specific breed of dog" that is inconsistent with it.
New Mexico	Allowed	No state law bars breed bans, and in Garcia v. Village of Tijeras (1988) the Court of Appeals upheld a village ordinance banning American Pit Bull Terriers.
New York	Banned by state law	Agriculture and Markets Law § 107(5) lets municipalities, including New York City, adopt stricter dangerous-dog programs but forbids any program that regulates dogs in a manner specific as to breed.
North Carolina	Allowed	No state law bars breed-specific rules: § 67-4.5 lets any city or county run its own dangerous-dog program.
North Dakota	Allowed	No North Dakota statute bars breed-specific ordinances, and state law lets cities regulate the keeping of dogs, including their "disposition or destruction".
Ohio	Allowed	State law has had no breed category since 2012, and no statute bars cities from breed rules; the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld Toledo's pit bull ordinance in 2007.
Oklahoma	Banned by state law	Cities and counties may regulate potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs only if "the regulations are not breed specific".
Oregon	Allowed	Oregon has no state breed law and no statute barring local ones; ORS 609.015 leaves city and county dog ordinances intact.
Pennsylvania	Banned by state law	The Dog Law abrogates local dangerous-dog ordinances and bars any local dog ordinance that prohibits or limits a specific breed.
Rhode Island	Banned by state law	Since 2013 no city or town may adopt a rule or ordinance specific to any breed of dog.
South Carolina	Not settled	State law says an animal is not a "dangerous animal" solely because of its breed, but that limits only the state article; no statute expressly bars counties and cities, which have broad power over animals, from breed rules.
South Dakota	Banned by state law	Since 2014, SDCL 40-34-16 bars any city, county or other local government from enacting, keeping or enforcing a breed-specific ordinance; rules that apply to all dogs remain allowed.
Tennessee	Allowed	No Tennessee statute preempts local breed bans, and some towns have them, such as Selmer's 2008 ban on keeping pit bull dogs.
Texas	Banned by state law	Cities and counties may add dangerous-dog rules only if they are more stringent than state law and not specific to one or several breeds.
Utah	Banned by state law	Since 2014, § 18-2-101 has barred cities and towns from adopting or enforcing breed-specific dog rules and makes any breed-specific dog ordinance void.
Vermont	Allowed	No Vermont statute bars breed-specific rules; 20 V.S.A. § 3549 lets towns regulate the keeping, muzzling and restraint of dogs by ordinance.
Virginia	Banned by state law	State law says no dog may be found dangerous or vicious solely because of its breed and that "the ownership of a particular breed" is not prohibited, and local vicious-dog ordinances must parallel the statute.
Washington	Allowed	Since 2020, a city or county may keep breed-based rules only if any dog that passes the AKC Canine Good Citizen test or an equivalent test is exempt for at least two years.
West Virginia	Allowed	No state law bars breed-specific local ordinances. State v. Blatt left breed presumptions to the Legislature and noted a circuit court decision upholding a city pit bull ban.
Wisconsin	Allowed	No Wisconsin statute bars breed-specific local laws, and some villages regulate listed breeds, such as Colfax's 2015 ordinance on pit bull types, Rottweilers and others.
Wyoming	Allowed	No Wyoming statute bars or requires breed-specific laws; cities and counties regulate dogs under general powers (W.S. 15-1-103(a)(xiv) and 11-31-301(g)).

A state rule in either column says nothing about private rules. Even in a preemption state, a lease, an HOA covenant or an insurer can still name breeds unless another statute says otherwise.

Federal rules: service animals, HUD housing and the military

No federal statute bans or protects dog breeds in general. Three federal rules matter in practice.

Service animals under the ADA. The Department of Justice says a service animal may not be excluded based on assumptions or stereotypes about its breed, and that municipalities that prohibit specific breeds “must make an exception for a service animal of a prohibited breed, unless the dog poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others” ¹⁵. That decision must rest on the individual dog’s behavior or history.
Fair Housing Act accommodations. The Act makes it unlawful to refuse “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services” when needed to give a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)) ¹⁶. HUD’s 2020 assistance-animal notice, FHEO-2020-01, which addressed breed limits, was withdrawn effective September 17, 2025, according to a HUD notice published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2026 ¹⁷. The statute still applies; the detailed HUD guidance no longer does.
HUD-assisted housing for elderly and disabled residents. Owners of these projects may adopt pet rules that place “reasonable limitations on the size, weight, and type” of household pets (24 CFR § 5.318) ¹⁸. The regulation does not mention breed.

Military housing follows the service’s own policy. In January 2009 the Army issued a pet policy for privatized family housing that bars pit bulls (American Staffordshire and English Staffordshire bull terriers), Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, chows and wolf hybrids, along with mixes of those breeds and other dogs that “demonstrate a propensity for dominant or aggressive behavior” ¹⁹. Installations add their own lists: Fort Leonard Wood’s Policy 40-4, as described by the Army in 2016, also names the Akita ²⁰. Families should ask the installation housing office for the policy in force before moving.

What the evidence on breed says

The study most often cited on both sides was written by CDC researchers. Sacks and colleagues found at least 25 breeds involved in 238 U.S. dog bite deaths from 1979 to 1998, with pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers involved in more than half ²¹. They also found that 58% of the deaths with data involved unrestrained dogs on their owners’ property ²¹.

The same authors warned against reading the counts as a ranking. Because a dog’s breed is hard to determine with certainty, they wrote, enforcing breed-specific ordinances “raises constitutional and practical issues”; fatal attacks are a small share of bite injuries and “should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs” ²¹. The study counted deaths from news reports and a humane society registry, without data on how many dogs of each breed exist ²¹. More figures are in dog bite statistics.

What BSL means for a bite claim or a dangerous-dog case

Breed rules and bite liability are separate questions. A city ban decides whether a dog may live there; the bite claim is decided by the state’s dog bite law, which in nearly every state looks at the owner and the individual dog.

Maryland is the one recent exception, and it did not last. In 2012 the Court of Appeals made owners and landlords of pit bulls strictly liable in Tracey v. Solesky ³⁰. The legislature answered with § 3-1901, a breed-neutral rule: proof that a dog caused an injury creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew of its dangerous propensities, whatever the breed, for causes of action arising on or after April 8, 2014 ¹³.

If you were bitten. The dog’s breed rarely decides the claim. What matters is your state’s rule, the deadline and any shared fault; the claim checker gives all three for your state. A violation of a local breed ordinance, such as a required muzzle, can still be evidence of negligence in a one-bite state; see the one-bite rule.
If your dog bit someone. A dangerous-dog hearing judges your dog’s conduct. In a state like Virginia, a finding cannot rest on breed alone ²⁷. The steps are in my dog bit someone, and the possible outcomes in dog bite euthanasia laws.
If you are moving with a listed breed. Check three things: the city or county code, the lease or HOA rules, and the homeowners or renters policy. A state preemption law covers only the first.

Every state page has a dangerous-dog page with that state’s breed rule, its statute and the date it was checked.

Questions

Can a city ban pit bulls?

It depends on the state. In states with a preemption statute, such as Connecticut since 2013, a city or county may not adopt a breed-specific dog ordinance¹. Where no statute bars it, courts have upheld local bans, as the Kansas Supreme Court did for Overland Park in 1989⁷.

Does a breed ban apply to a service dog?

No. The U.S. Department of Justice says municipalities that prohibit specific breeds must make an exception for a service animal of a prohibited breed, unless that dog poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others¹⁵.

Can my landlord or HOA refuse my dog because of its breed?

State BSL preemption laws usually limit cities and counties, not private landlords, so a private lease or HOA rule can still list breeds. Florida is an exception for public housing: authorities there may not adopt dog rules specific to breed, weight or size². A person with a disability can ask for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act¹⁶.

Does breed matter in a dog bite lawsuit?

Usually not by itself. Maryland briefly made owners of pit bulls strictly liable after a 2012 court decision, but a 2014 statute replaced that with a breed-neutral presumption against every owner, for claims arising on or after April 8, 2014¹³. Most states judge the owner's knowledge of the individual dog.

Sources

Connecticut General Statutes § 7-148(c)(7)(D), Municipal powers: animals, Connecticut General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
Florida Statutes chapter 767, part II, Dangerous Dogs (§§ 767.10–767.16), The Florida Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
HB 941 (2023), Authorization of Restriction Concerning Dogs, ch. 2023-253, Laws of Florida, The Florida Senate. Checked 17 October 2026.
C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5, Unlawful ownership of dangerous dog, Colorado Revised Statutes (public.law copy). Checked 17 October 2026.
Breed-Restricted Permits, City and County of Denver, Denver Animal Protection. Checked 17 October 2026.
RCW 16.08.110, Breed-based regulations, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 244 Kan. 638, 772 P.2d 758 (1989), CourtListener (Kansas Supreme Court opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 108 N.M. 116, 767 P.2d 355 (Ct. App. 1988), Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School. Checked 17 October 2026.
Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724, Supreme Court of Ohio. Checked 17 October 2026.
Ohio Revised Code § 955.10, Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Checked 17 October 2026.
State v. Blatt, 235 W. Va. 489, 774 S.E.2d 570 (2015), CourtListener (Free Law Project). Checked 17 October 2026.
Pit Bull Fact Sheet (CB-097-2025), Prince George's County Government. Checked 17 October 2026.
Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-1901, Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
Senate Bill 991 (2014): Dogs – Breed-Based Restrictions – Prohibition, Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA (updated February 28, 2020), U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. Checked 17 October 2026.
42 U.S.C. § 3604, Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Checked 17 October 2026.
Notification of Withdrawal of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Guidance Documents, FR Doc. 2026-06624 (April 6, 2026), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Register. Checked 17 October 2026.
24 CFR § 5.318, Discretionary pet rules, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Checked 17 October 2026.
New housing rules include breed restrictions (January 29, 2009), U.S. Army. Checked 17 October 2026.
Policies clarify rules about Family pets on Fort Leonard Wood (July 7, 2016), U.S. Army. Checked 17 October 2026.
Sacks JJ et al., Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217(6):836-40, PubMed, National Library of Medicine. Checked 17 October 2026.
22 Del. C. § 116, Dogs, Delaware General Assembly, Delaware Code Online. Checked 17 October 2026.
Utah Code § 18-2-101, Regulation of dogs by a municipality, Utah Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
SDCL 40-34-16 (breed-specific ordinances prohibited), South Dakota Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
7 M.R.S. § 3950, Local regulations, Maine Legislature, Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Checked 17 October 2026.
Texas Health and Safety Code ch. 822 (regulation of animals; dangerous dogs), Texas Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
Code of Virginia § 3.2-6540 (dangerous dogs), Virginia General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
S.C. Code Title 47, Chapter 3 (Animals), South Carolina Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
House File 651 (90th General Assembly), bill history, Iowa Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627, 50 A.3d 1075 (2012), Maryland Judiciary. Checked 17 October 2026.

Breed-Specific Legislation by State: Where Pit Bull Bans Are Allowed