Most of the weird laws in the USA that circulate on viral lists don’t hold up when you check them against an actual legal code. Some are genuine and still active. Others were real once but got repealed years ago. A surprising number appear to be pure internet folklore, repeated so often that nobody bothers to verify them. Sorting the real from the recycled takes a few minutes with a state’s official statutes, and the results are usually more interesting than the myths.
Why These Lists Get It Wrong
Claims about strange statutes bounce from one listicle to the next without anyone checking the source. A supposed law might reference a statute number that was repealed decades ago, point to a code section that says something entirely different, or have no traceable origin at all. Once a fake law enters the rotation, each new article cites the previous one instead of the actual code, and the myth hardens.
Verifying one is not hard. Every state publishes its code online through its legislature’s website, and cities post municipal codes through platforms like Municode. If a claim doesn’t come with a statute number you can look up, that’s usually the first sign it’s fiction. The entries below have been checked against primary sources.
Weird Laws That Are Real Right Now
In Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, the municipal code bans wearing shoes with heels higher than two inches or a base smaller than one square inch unless you first obtain a permit. The city attorney drafted the ordinance in 1963 after concerns about lawsuits from people tripping on sidewalks buckled by tree roots. The permit is free at City Hall, local police don’t cite violators, and the law stays on the books as a liability shield for the city.1Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Fun Facts about Carmel – Section: Permit Required to Wear High Heels
Wisconsin’s oleomargarine rules under statute 97.18 are perhaps the best example of a strange law with a perfectly logical economic origin. Wisconsin started regulating margarine in 1881 to protect its dairy industry, and a full ban on yellow-colored margarine lasted until 1967. The statute still prohibits restaurants from serving margarine as a substitute for butter unless the customer specifically asks for it. State institutions like hospitals and schools cannot serve margarine to patients, students, or inmates unless a physician orders it for medical reasons. The law also sets strict requirements for how much dye margarine can contain and how it must be packaged and labeled.2Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Code 97.18 – Oleomargarine Regulations
Gainesville, Georgia, the self-proclaimed poultry capital of the world, adopted an ordinance in 1961 declaring that fried chicken is a delicacy that must be eaten with your hands. It functions as a marketing stunt for the local poultry industry more than a serious criminal prohibition. The last known “enforcement” was a practical joke: a mock citation handed to a 91-year-old visitor from Louisiana during a birthday celebration at a local restaurant.
The most consequential weird laws still actively enforced are Sunday blue laws. About a dozen states still prohibit car dealerships from opening on Sundays, and many states maintain restrictions on Sunday alcohol sales, ranging from complete bans on off-premises purchases to shortened hours for liquor stores. These rules descend from colonial-era religious observance requirements and have survived legal challenges because courts have accepted secular justifications like providing workers a common day of rest. Unlike most entries on weird-law lists, blue laws affect millions of people every week.
Weird Laws That Were Real but Got Repealed
Some of the most frequently cited weird laws were genuine once but no longer exist. Treating them as current is one of the most common errors in this genre.
Alabama’s bear wrestling statute is a prime example. Section 13A-12-5 of the Alabama Code did criminalize promoting, participating in, or being employed at a bear wrestling match, as well as selling, purchasing, or training a bear for that purpose. It was enacted in 1996 as a serious animal welfare measure. The Alabama legislature repealed it through Act 2015-70, effective April 21, 2015, as part of a broader effort to clear laws deemed obsolete or redundant. Bear wrestling would still likely violate Alabama’s general animal cruelty statutes, but the specific bear exploitation law no longer exists.3Alabama Legislature. Code of Alabama Section 13A-12-5 – Unlawful Bear Exploitation
Pinball bans are another well-documented case. Starting in the late 1930s, major cities including New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles banned pinball machines, treating them as gambling devices that corrupted youth and encouraged truancy. New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia led highly publicized campaigns to seize and destroy the machines. These bans lasted for decades, falling apart in the 1970s only after manufacturers demonstrated that pinball involved genuine skill rather than pure chance. A few outdated local ordinances restricting pinball may technically remain in some jurisdictions, though none are actively enforced.
Famous “Laws” That Don’t Actually Exist
Several of the most famous weird laws fall apart the moment you try to find them in an actual code.
The claim that Kentucky bans walking a fish on a leash or leading one with a harness is one of the most repeated entries on these lists. Kentucky’s fish and wildlife statutes do regulate the transport of live fish and require permits for importing fish into the state, but no provision in the Kentucky Revised Statutes or the Kentucky Administrative Regulations addresses harnesses, leashes, or leading fish in any context. Searches of the state’s official code turn up nothing resembling this claim.
Alabama’s supposed ban on wearing a fake mustache in church if it causes laughter is another staple. Alabama does have a disorderly conduct statute at Section 13A-11-7 that covers disturbing a lawful assembly, which would include a religious service. The statute says nothing about fake mustaches, costumes, or specific items of attire. The claim appears to be an embellished reading of the general disturbance provision rather than a standalone prohibition.
The assertion that Mississippi prohibits profane language in the presence of a deceased person is similarly elusive. Mississippi’s disorderly conduct statute at Section 97-35-18 does address profane or indecent language in public settings, with penalties of up to a $500 fine and six months in jail for a first offense. The statute makes no mention of deceased persons, funerals, or any heightened penalty for language used near the dead. The frequently cited penalty range of $25 to $100 doesn’t match the actual statute either.
Why the Strange Ones Stay on the Books
Removing a law requires someone to draft a repeal bill, move it through committee hearings, and secure floor votes in both chambers. That process consumes time, staff, and political capital that lawmakers would rather spend on issues their constituents actually care about. No legislator builds a career on repealing a margarine regulation.
Some states have attempted systematic cleanup. Alabama’s 2015 repeal of the bear wrestling law was part of a broader push to clear obsolete statutes. Campaigns like this are rare and usually triggered by embarrassment rather than routine maintenance, and most states have no standing process for identifying dead-letter laws.
A few jurisdictions use sunset provisions, which build an automatic expiration date into a statute so it stops being effective unless the legislature votes to renew it. The approach is typically reserved for temporary measures and isn’t applied retroactively to laws already on the books, so it doesn’t help clear the existing backlog.
What Happens If Someone Tries to Enforce One
On the rare occasion that someone actually faces charges under one of these dusty statutes, several constitutional doctrines kick in. The void-for-vagueness doctrine lets a court strike down a criminal law so unclear that an ordinary person couldn’t understand what it prohibits, and many archaic laws were written in exactly that kind of loose, subjective language. The rule of lenity requires courts to read any ambiguity in a criminal statute in favor of the defendant, which gives anyone charged under an outdated law significant leverage.
The First Amendment limits enforcement of old morality statutes. The Supreme Court held in Cohen v. California (1971) that profane language in public is generally protected speech, ruling that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” That decision puts the various cursing statutes still scattered across state codes on shaky constitutional ground if anyone tried to apply them.
Selective enforcement is a problem too. If authorities dust off a forgotten law and apply it only against certain groups while ignoring identical behavior by others, the targets can raise an equal protection claim under the standard set in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), where the Supreme Court held that even a facially neutral law becomes unconstitutional when “applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand.” Most prosecutors know that charging someone under a visibly archaic statute invites exactly this kind of challenge, which is why these laws almost never see the inside of a courtroom.