About this guide: We are independent patient researchers, not medical doctors. We review peer-reviewed literature (PubMed), government trial registries and regulators’ guidance, plus documented patient reports, to help you navigate clinic options and spot predatory marketing. How we research.
Is stem cell therapy legal in your state? Federal law — the FDA’s rules for cell and tissue products — applies everywhere in the US, and most stem cell products sold by private clinics are not FDA-approved. On top of that, a growing number of states have passed their own laws on consent, advertising notices or access to investigational treatments. This tracker shows where each state stands.
AT A GLANCE · USA
| States with a stem-cell-specific law | 11 |
|---|---|
| Right to Try law only | 31 |
| No specific law | 8 |
| Federal regulator | US Food and Drug Administration (21 CFR Part 1271) |
| Last reviewed | October 2026 |
Important: a state law does not make a treatment FDA-approved, safe or effective. State “Right to Try” laws cover investigational drugs that have passed early (Phase 1) trials — they do not legalise unproven clinic treatments. Always verify your doctor with the state medical board.
Stem cell laws by state
| State | Status | What the law says | Right to Try | Check a doctor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | Alabama Board of Medical Examiners |
| Alaska | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. | 2018 | Alaska State Medical Board |
| Arizona | Right to Try only | Arizona has no stem-cell-clinic-specific statute. Its Right to Try laws, including the 2022 expansion for individualised investigational treatments (SB 1163), cover eligible patients and do not authorise routine sale of unapproved stem cell products. A 2026 bill to allow some unapproved stem cell therapies (SB 1214) passed the legislature but was vetoed in June 2026 (it would have allowed unapproved stem cell or birth-tissue therapy for orthopaedics, wound care and pain). | 2014 | Arizona Medical Board (MDs); Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners (DOs) |
| Arkansas | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Arkansas stem cell statutes concern embryo research limits and a public cord blood bank, not clinic treatments. | 2015 | Arkansas State Medical Board |
| California | Stem-cell-specific law SB 512 (2017) | Requires practitioners offering stem cell therapies not approved by the FDA to give patients a written notice and display a sign saying so; SB 1495 (2018) updated the notice rules. It does not authorise unapproved treatments. In 2024 the Ninth Circuit ruled that fat-derived SVF cell products are drugs subject to FDA regulation; the Supreme Court declined review in October 2025. | 2016 | Medical Board of California; Osteopathic Medical Board of California |
| Colorado | Right to Try only | Colorado has no law that authorises or specifically regulates commercial stem cell clinics; its stem cell statute (C.R.S. 25-40) supports public cord blood banking. Its Right to Try law applies only to eligible patients seeking investigational products. Colorado was the first state to pass a Right to Try law (May 2014). | 2014 | Colorado Medical Board (DORA) |
| Connecticut | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Connecticut’s stem cell law (2005) funds and governs research, not clinic treatments. | Yes | Connecticut Medical Examining Board (Department of Public Health) |
| Delaware | No specific law | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; federal FDA rules apply. | — | Delaware Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline |
| Florida | Stem-cell-specific law CS/CS/SB 1768 (2025) | Since 1 July 2025, licensed physicians may use stem cell therapies not approved by the FDA only for orthopaedics, wound care or pain management, with cells from FDA-registered or accredited facilities, signed consent and an advertising notice. Using fetal or embryonic tissue is a felony. Legal commentators note the state law does not change federal FDA requirements. | 2015 | Florida Board of Medicine; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine |
| Georgia | Stem-cell-specific law HB 1275 (2026) | Signed in May 2026 (effective July 2026), it lets physicians, and physician assistants and nurse practitioners working under physician designation, offer stem cell therapies not approved by the FDA, with a notice encouraging patients to consult their primary care provider, signed consent, sourcing from FDA-registered or accredited facilities and an advertising notice. Cells from aborted fetuses or embryos are banned. This law is new; rules and enforcement are still taking shape, and federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | Georgia Composite Medical Board |
| Hawaii | No specific law | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; federal FDA rules apply. | — | Hawaii Medical Board (DCCA) |
| Idaho | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Idaho law bans the use of human embryonic stem cells for research or transplant; it does not regulate adult stem cell clinics. Board homepage given; we did not confirm a direct public lookup page. | Yes | Idaho Board of Medicine (DOPL) |
| Illinois | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. IDFPR has issued a consumer warning about unproven stem cell therapy; Illinois stem cell statutes concern research. | Yes | Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) |
| Indiana | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Indiana law bans human embryonic stem cell research; it does not regulate adult stem cell clinics. | Yes | Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (Professional Licensing Agency) |
| Iowa | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Iowa stem cell statutes concern cloning and research. | Yes | Iowa Board of Medicine |
| Kansas | No specific law | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; federal FDA rules apply. A 2013 law (SB 199) created an adult stem cell research and therapy centre at the University of Kansas Medical Center; it does not regulate private clinics. | — | Kansas State Board of Healing Arts |
| Kentucky | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure |
| Louisiana | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific treatment statute. The state medical board’s 2013 policy says stem cell products should be used only if FDA-approved, in an FDA-approved trial, or otherwise permitted by the FDA, and the 2024 Right to Try update excludes embryonic stem cell products. Louisiana is the only state the FSMB lists with a board policy on stem cell products (Feb 2013). Board homepage given; we did not confirm a direct lookup page. | 2014 | Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners |
| Maine | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine |
| Maryland | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. The Maryland Stem Cell Research Act (2006) funds research, not clinic treatments. | Yes | Maryland Board of Physicians |
| Massachusetts | No specific law | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; federal FDA rules apply. Massachusetts law supports stem cell research and regulates research, not clinic treatments. | — | Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine |
| Michigan | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Michigan’s constitution (2008) protects lawful stem cell research; this does not authorise unapproved clinic treatments. | 2014 | Michigan Board of Medicine (LARA) |
| Minnesota | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Minnesota funds regenerative medicine research; no clinic-specific law. | Yes | Minnesota Board of Medical Practice |
| Mississippi | Stem-cell-specific law SB 2830 (2020) | Expands the state’s Right to Try law (2020 amendment, effective June 2020) to include adult autologous (the patient’s own) mesenchymal stem cells for a debilitating disability, traumatic injury, or terminal or life-threatening illness, with written informed consent. | Yes | Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure |
| Missouri | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Missouri’s 2006 constitutional amendment protects stem cell research; it does not authorise unapproved clinic treatments. | 2014 | Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts |
| Montana | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute. SB 535 (2025) expanded Montana’s Right to Try framework to let licensed experimental treatment centres offer some investigational treatments that have completed early-phase testing; federal FDA rules still apply. SB 535 was signed in May 2025; whether specific stem cell products qualify under it is not clear, so check with the state. | Yes | Montana Board of Medical Examiners |
| Nebraska | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Nebraska state health officials have warned about unapproved stem cell, placental and cord blood products. | Yes | Nebraska Board of Medicine and Surgery (DHHS) |
| Nevada | Right to Try only | Nevada has no law that authorises unapproved stem cell treatments. A 2019 law (SB 363) ordered a study of stem cell centres, and a 2025 bill (SB 128) with stem cell patient-information rules was vetoed in June 2025. One commentary refers to a 2023 Nevada law on non-FDA-approved biological therapies; we could not confirm it, so treat this as uncertain. | 2015 | Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (MDs); Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) |
| New Hampshire | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. OPLC licensing page given; we did not confirm a direct public lookup page. | Yes | New Hampshire Board of Medicine (OPLC) |
| New Jersey | No specific law | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; federal FDA rules apply. New Jersey law (2004) permits stem cell research; it does not regulate clinic treatments. | — | New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners |
| New Mexico | No specific law | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; federal FDA rules apply. | — | New Mexico Medical Board |
| New York | No specific law | New York has no state law that authorises or specifically regulates commercial stem cell clinics; its stem cell statutes concern research funding (NYSTEM). Federal FDA rules apply. The state Attorney General sued a Manhattan stem cell clinic in 2019 and won a $5.1 million judgment in 2021 for misleading advertising. | — | NYSED Office of the Professions (licensing); NYS Department of Health OPMC (discipline) |
| North Carolina | Stem-cell-specific law HB 934 (2019) | Expands the state Right to Try law to allow investigational adult stem cell treatments for patients with a terminal or chronic illness, with informed consent and IRB oversight; the private sale of adult stem cells is banned. Session Law 2019-70, enacted July 2019, effective 1 December 2019. | Yes | North Carolina Medical Board |
| North Dakota | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. In 2018 the state Attorney General fined a Bismarck stem cell clinic $20,000 and it agreed to stop unapproved stem cell injections. | Yes | North Dakota Board of Medicine |
| Ohio | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | State Medical Board of Ohio |
| Oklahoma | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Oklahoma’s 2024 law (HB 3126) concerns adult and cord blood stem cell research, not clinic treatments. Board homepage given; we did not confirm a direct lookup page. | Yes | Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision |
| Oregon | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. The board published a 2017 newsletter article on stem cell therapy risks and benefits. | Yes | Oregon Medical Board |
| Pennsylvania | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Online licensing services page given; licence verification is through the state PALS system. | Yes | Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine; State Board of Osteopathic Medicine |
| Rhode Island | No specific law | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; federal FDA rules apply. | — | Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline |
| South Carolina | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. The FSMB notes the board has issued a stem cell advisory opinion. Board homepage given; we did not confirm a direct lookup page. | Yes | South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners (LLR) |
| South Dakota | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. South Dakota law bans human embryonic stem cell use but allows adult stem cells for approved purposes. | Yes | South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners |
| Tennessee | Stem-cell-specific law HB 2246 (2026) | Signed in May 2026 (main provisions effective July 2026), it lets physicians offer stem cell and regenerative therapies not approved by the FDA within their scope of practice, with cells from FDA-registered or accredited facilities, written consent, advertising notices and adverse-event reporting. This law is new and federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners |
| Texas | Stem-cell-specific law HB 810 (2017) | Lets physicians offer investigational adult stem cell treatments to patients with a severe chronic or terminal illness when approved options are unavailable, with informed consent and IRB oversight; HB 3148 (2019) added a state registry requirement. A 2025 bill to expand these settings (HB 5147) did not pass; state law does not override FDA rules. | 2015 | Texas Medical Board |
| Utah | Stem-cell-specific law SB 199 (2024) | Since May 2024, providers whose scope of practice includes it may give placental stem cell products that are not FDA-approved, after a prominent written notice and signed consent; not doing so is unprofessional conduct. Critics say the law conflicts with federal FDA rules; one commentary reports a 2026 amendment adding supplier duties, which we have not confirmed. | 2015 | Utah Division of Professional Licensing (DOPL) |
| Vermont | Stem-cell-specific law Act 61 (2021) | Requires practitioners who give stem cell treatments not approved by the FDA to provide a standard notice, get signed informed consent, and say the treatment is not FDA-approved in any advertising. Breaking the rules can count as unprofessional conduct. Vermont has no state Right to Try law; the federal Right to Try Act (2018) still applies. | — | Vermont Board of Medical Practice |
| Virginia | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. Virginia funds stem cell research (Christopher Reeve Stem Cell Research Fund). | Yes | Virginia Board of Medicine (Department of Health Professions) |
| Washington | Stem-cell-specific law HB 2356 (2018) | Requires providers offering stem cell treatments not approved by the FDA to tell patients this and obtain informed consent before treatment (RCW 18.130.420). | Yes | Washington Medical Commission |
| West Virginia | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | West Virginia Board of Medicine (MDs); West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) |
| Wisconsin | Right to Try only | No stem-cell-specific statute for clinical treatment; the state Right to Try law covers investigational products for eligible patients, and federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | Wisconsin Medical Examining Board (DSPS) |
| Wyoming | Stem-cell-specific law SF 48 Stem Cell Freedom Act (2026) | Signed in March 2026 (effective July 2026), it allows some unapproved treatments using a patient’s own (autologous) mesenchymal stem cells, with requirements including IRB approval, quality manufacturing, an existing doctor-patient relationship and board registration. Federal FDA rules still apply. | Yes | Wyoming Board of Medicine |
State guides with more detail
- Dallas, Texas
- Houston, Texas
- Miami, Florida
- Scottsdale, Arizona
- Los Angeles, California
- New York, New York
- Las Vegas, Nevada
- Salt Lake City, Utah
- Denver, Colorado
- Austin, Texas
Free patient guide
Before You Pay: The Stem Cell Clinic Checklist
- 20 questions every legitimate clinic should answer in writing
- A red-flag scorecard to spot unregulated marketing
- Realistic 2026 cost ranges: US, Mexico, Panama & Europe
- How to find a registered clinical trial
Stem cell laws in the US: FAQs
Is stem cell therapy legal in the US?
Some stem cell treatments are legal and FDA-approved, mainly blood-forming stem cell transplants for blood cancers and certain blood disorders. Most other stem cell products sold by private clinics are not FDA-approved, and the FDA regards many of them as unapproved drugs.
Which states allow unapproved stem cell treatments?
A few states, including Texas, Utah and Florida, have passed laws allowing certain investigational or non-FDA-approved stem cell treatments under conditions such as informed consent and notices. These state laws do not override federal FDA rules.
What is a Right to Try law?
Right to Try laws let terminally ill patients request access to investigational drugs that have completed Phase 1 trials. They are not specific to stem cells and do not make unproven clinic treatments legal or safe.
How do I check if a stem cell doctor is licensed?
Use your state medical board’s licence lookup, linked for every state in the table above. Check the licence status, specialty and any disciplinary actions.
Sources
- Alabama Legislature: Summaries of the 2017 General Acts
- FSMB: Regenerative and Stem Cell Therapy Board-by-Board Overview (Aug 2024)
- Goldwater Institute: Alaska becomes 41st state to enact Right to Try
- Goldwater Institute: Arizona Right to Try expansion (2022)
- BillTrack50: Arizona SB 1214 (2026) – vetoed
- California Legislative Information: SB-512 (2017)
- AABB: SCOTUS declines stem cell case (Oct 2025)
- Wikipedia: Right-to-try law (state list)
- Florida Senate: CS/CS/SB 1768 (2025) bill summary
- Holland & Knight: New Florida stem cell law (Aug 2025)
- Office of the Governor: HB 1275 (2026) signed legislation
- Florida Healthcare Law Firm: Georgia and Tennessee stem cell laws (2026)
- Little Health Law Blog: Georgia bill regulating stem cell treatments (2026)
- Goldwater Institute: Right to Try expanded in Maryland
Last reviewed October 2026. For general information only — not medical advice. We do not endorse any clinic or product. Always consult a qualified, licensed healthcare professional. See our medical disclaimer and editorial policy.