US State AI Law Tracker: In Force, Pending or Repealed

TL;DR: June 30, 2026 was the deadline Colorado's original AI law would have hit -- except it was repealed in May. As of today, 7 state-level AI laws are in force. Connecticut's broader SB 5 takes effect October 1. No federal law has preempted state AI regulation yet, despite a White House push. Here is the complete status table.

Why today is a milestone

June 30, 2026 was the date Colorado's Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 24-205) was scheduled to take effect. It would have been the first comprehensive US state AI law -- affecting any company using AI to make consequential decisions for Colorado residents.

It was repealed before it ever took effect.

On May 14, 2026, Governor Jared Polis signed SB 26-189, which repealed SB 24-205 and replaced it with a narrower automated decision-making technology (ADMT) statute effective January 1, 2027. The switch came after sustained pressure from the White House and industry groups arguing the original law was too broad.

That repeal-and-replace is the defining event of the 2026 state AI law landscape: ambitious legislation gets trimmed, delayed, or replaced when federal pressure and industry lobbying converge. Colorado is not alone.

Complete US state AI law status table (June 30, 2026)

The federal preemption fight: where things stand

The Trump administration's December 11, 2025 executive order took direct aim at state AI laws. It specifically named Colorado's original law as an example of legislation that would "force AI models to produce false results." The order:

• Created a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force with authority to challenge state laws in federal court
• Directed the Commerce Department to publish a review of "overly burdensome" state AI laws by March 11, 2026
• Ordered the development of legislative recommendations for a federal AI framework that would preempt conflicting state laws

As of June 30, 2026, no lawsuits from the AI Litigation Task Force have been filed against any state AI law. No federal AI statute has passed Congress. The Commerce Department review was due in March but has not resulted in any enforcement action.

What the executive order has done is create legislative chilling effects. Colorado's repeal-and-replace is the clearest example. Several states that had ambitious AI bills in 2025 legislative sessions significantly trimmed them before passage.

For compliance purposes: State AI laws remain fully enforceable unless a court issues a specific injunction. "The federal government might preempt this eventually" is not a compliance defense. Comply with currently effective laws.

State-specific compliance priorities for small teams

Immediate (already in force):

• NYC Local Law 144: If you use AI tools that screen, rank, or score job candidates in NYC, you must conduct an annual bias audit and post a notice. The AEDT definition is broad enough to include many commercial ATS products with AI features.
• Texas TRAIGA: If your AI system is used in Texas and makes decisions affecting protected classes, document your development process and intent. No private right of action -- only the AG can enforce -- but the AG has taken an aggressive posture on tech regulation.
• Illinois HB 3773: If you use AI in any employment decision-making in Illinois (screening, promotion, termination), give employees notice that you use it, and make sure it doesn't have a discriminatory effect on protected classes or use zip codes as a proxy. There's no audit requirement, but the effect on protected classes is what a charge would test.
• Connecticut CTDPA (SB 4): Data privacy threshold is now 35,000 consumers (down from 100,000). If you serve Connecticut consumers and process their data, your CTDPA obligations may have just triggered.

Coming soon:

• Connecticut SB 5 (October 1, 2026): Using an automated employment decision tool stops being a defense to discrimination claims, and WARN filings get an AI question. Disclosure and pre-decision notices apply to tools deployed from October 1, 2027. There's no bias audit mandate; provenance duties fall on generators with over one million monthly users. 93 days from today.
• Colorado SB 26-189 (January 1, 2027): If AI makes consequential decisions about Colorado residents (employment, housing, lending, education, healthcare), you need pre-decision notices, explanation processes, and human review procedures in place. 185 days.
• Illinois SB 315: Not yet signed, but if enacted, large frontier AI developers would face substantial new obligations in Illinois starting 2027.

Multi-state compliance strategy for small teams

If your team operates across multiple states, duplicating compliance programs per state is not practical. The approach that works:

1. Identify your highest-obligation state -- usually the one with the most specific requirements. Connecticut SB 5 and Colorado SB 26-189 are the most detailed as of late 2026.
2. Build to the highest standard -- a disclosure notice that satisfies Connecticut SB 5's automated employment decision requirements will also satisfy Illinois HB 3773's simpler notice requirement.
3. Document AI use systematically -- every state law that requires disclosure, audit, or explanation starts with knowing which AI tools you use and what decisions they touch.
4. Watch the federal preemption story -- if Congress passes a federal AI law, it may preempt some state requirements. But it may also preempt state laws you wanted to have (like strong privacy floors). Monitor but don't wait.

For a framework-level strategy across all these laws, see the multi-state AI compliance strategy guide. For details on the state bias audit requirements that apply in NYC and how they compare to Colorado SB 26-189's requirements, see multi-state AI bias audit requirements.

Correction (October 13, 2026): An earlier version told Connecticut employers to establish bias audit processes and prepare notices for October 1, 2026. SB 5 has no audit mandate and its notices start October 1, 2027.

Correction (October 16, 2026): An earlier FAQ answer said the FTC argued that SB 26-189 conflicted with federal authority and called it the first formal preemption theory from a federal agency. The FTC's proposed statement names Colorado's revised AI Act and says it is impliedly preempted to the extent it conflicts with federal law (FTC); we had no source for "first". We also now say June 30, 2026 was the delayed start date set by SB 25B-004, not the original one.

Correction (October 20, 2026): An earlier version said HB 3773 requires written notice before using the tool and is "just disclosure". The act requires notice, without saying written, and also makes it a civil rights violation to use AI with a discriminatory effect or to use zip codes as a proxy (P.A. 103-0804).

Related Reading

• Rhode Island Just Passed 3 AI Laws With a $15,000-a-Day Penalty
• Colorado AI Act compliance: what SB 26-189 requires in 2027
• Connecticut SB 5 AI Employer Checklist: 10 Steps Before October 1, 2026
• Texas TRAIGA Compliance Checklist 2026
• Texas TRAIGA Complaint Portal Is Live: What Changes for AI Teams Now
• Illinois AI Employment Disclosure Law 2026
• Multi-State AI Compliance Strategy 2026
• Multi-State AI Bias Audit Requirements 2026
• One Big Beautiful Bill AI Preemption: Senate Voted 99-1 Against It
• FTC Says Colorado's AI Bias Law May Be Preempted
• New Jersey Bans Algorithmic Rent Pricing: Landlord Compliance Guide