Book bans have far-reaching negative effects that threaten individual rights, educational integrity, and societal progress. They silence important voices and ideas, depriving students of stories that help them understand themselves and others—especially those about race, gender, or sexuality—thus erasing marginalized communities from the educational landscape.[1] Such bans undermine the fundamental right to read, a cornerstone of democracy, by restricting access to information and limiting the free exchange of ideas essential for personal growth.[2] Historically, censorship has been used as a tool of oppression—erasing dissent, hiding truths, and maintaining control—patterns that continue today through efforts to silence challenging or uncomfortable topics.[3] In education, particularly within school libraries, censorship hampers critical thinking and the ability to grapple with complex issues like mental health, social justice, and identity, impeding students’ development as independent thinkers.[4] Further these censorship efforts violate international human rights, which protect the right to access diverse ideas and information worldwide, directly undermining global principles of free expression and cultural diversity.[5]
The Case That Started It All: Island Trees v. Pico
The origins of contemporary book bans can be traced back to landmark legal cases that set the stage for ongoing censorship debates. A pivotal moment was the 1982 Supreme Court case Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico.[6] In Pico, a school board removed books from its library because they disliked their ideas—calling them “anti-American,”[7] “anti-Christian,” and “filthy.”[8] The Supreme Court ruled that such political or ideological censorship was unconstitutional.[9] The Court affirmed that students have a right to access diverse ideas, even if those ideas are controversial or unpopular, and that censorship motivated by disagreement with content violates the First Amendment.[10] This decision sent a clear message: schools cannot suppress ideas just because they find them inconvenient or uncomfortable.[11]
The ruling protected the fundamental right to access a broad spectrum of information and ideas, especially within the educational context where students’ rights and parents’ concerns intersect.[12] It emphasized that education, particularly through school libraries, should remain a space for free thought and inquiry, safeguarding the ability of young minds to explore complex issues and develop critical thinking skills.[13]
The Irony of Banning Books for “Vulgarity” and the Paradox of Parental Monitoring
A common argument against certain books is that they contain “vulgar” language or sexual content and are therefore inappropriate.[14] But here’s the irony: many of these bans target books that depict real-life issues—mental health struggles, grief, sexual violence, or identity—topics that are often discussed openly in health classes, textbooks, and online media.[15] For example, some schools ban books because they contain words or themes related to sexuality or violence, yet those same schools might have health textbooks with explicit images or descriptions. How can they justify banning a novel with honest portrayals of adolescent experiences while allowing explicit images in a health class? The inconsistency reveals that these bans are less about protecting children and more about controlling the narrative.
The inconsistency in how society or certain institutions approach censorship—such as banning some books while allowing explicit content elsewhere—reveals an underlying motive. If the primary goal was genuinely to protect children from harmful or inappropriate material, then the standards and actions would be consistent across all platforms, including school curricula, textbooks, media, and online content.
However, the fact that many banned books contain honest portrayals of complex, real-life issues—like mental health struggles, sexuality, or violence—while other sources, such as health textbooks or online media, include explicit images or descriptions without similar bans, suggests otherwise. The selective nature of these bans indicates that the real aim is not solely about shielding children from harm.
Some may suggest that parents want control in what their children read and that certain books should be banned or monitored. That’s understandable; parents want to shield their children from harmful content. But here’s the catch: children have access to the internet and tablets that expose them to far more explicit, harmful, or misleading content than anything found in schoolbooks.[16] Social media platforms are filled with images, videos, and messages that are often far more age-inappropriate than the books targeted in censorship campaigns.
If parents are genuinely concerned about content, shouldn’t they also scrutinize what their children are exposed to online? This inconsistency underscores an important point: banning books in schools does not shield children from uncomfortable or mature topics. Instead, it pushes those conversations into secretive, unregulated spaces online where children may encounter even more harmful material without guidance or context.
Why Censorship Is Dangerous for Society
Book bans are not merely about restricting access to individual titles; they pose a fundamental threat to the principles of a free and democratic society.[17] Suppressing ideas hampers the development of critical thinking, moral reasoning, and empathy.[18] By banning books that challenge traditional power structures or reveal uncomfortable truths, authorities can manipulate public perception and marginalize voices that question the status quo.[19] Moreover, the practice fosters a culture of fear and conformity, discouraging open dialogue and curbing curiosity.[20] Ultimately, this undermines core principles of free expression and diversity, which are vital for societal progress and the protection of individual rights.
What Can We Do?
Understanding the importance of the right to read is the first step in safeguarding intellectual freedom. The Pico case underscores that local school boards may not remove books from libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained within them.[21] Such actions violate students’ First Amendment rights and threaten the open exchange of ideas essential to education and democracy.[22] We must actively oppose censorship efforts and support librarians, educators, and organizations fighting to preserve access to diverse ideas. Advocating for transparent, fair policies around book selection and challenge processes is essential. Recognizing that exposure to complex topics, when handled appropriately, is a vital part of education helps foster an environment where open dialogue, critical thinking, and understanding can thrive—principles reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Pico.[23]
Conclusion
The fight over books is more than a debate about literature; it’s about the kind of society we want to be. Do we want a society that values free speech, diversity, and critical thinking, or do we accept a future where ideas are silenced, voices marginalized, and ignorance prevails? The landmark case Pico v. Island Trees reminds us that censorship motivated by disagreement with ideas is unconstitutional and unjust.[24] As we witness a wave of book bans today, it is more important than ever to stand up for the fundamental rights to read, think, and learn without fear or censorship. Protecting these rights is essential to preserving a free and open society.
[4]See generally Bd. of Educ. v. Pico,457 U.S. 853, 857 (1982).
[5] Censorship efforts, like banning books, directly contradict these principles by limiting individuals’ exposure to different perspectives, cultures, and beliefs. This restriction undermines efforts to promote free expression and cultural diversity worldwide, both of which are essential for fostering understanding, tolerance, and progress in an increasingly interconnected world. G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948).
Restrictive covenants in employee contracts—especially non-compete agreements (NCAs)—have become a focal point in recent employment law debates. NCAs restrict an employee from taking on a role that competes with their current employer.[1] Critics claim these covenants suppress wages, hinder worker mobility, and reinforce employer protections.[2] In response, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a 2024 ruling banning NCAs for many workers.[3] Despite the FTC’s decision, Florida’s Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act moves in the opposite direction.
Florida enacted House Bill 1219, also known as the CHOICE Act, in 2025.[4] The Act does not eliminate Florida’s existing restrictive covenant law,[5] but rather adds a new employer-friendly rule that presumes the enforceability of noncompete and garden leave agreements for certain employees.[6] The Florida Legislature enacted this bill to protect business investments, promote training and knowledge sharing, and provide greater certainty for employers in a competitive market.[7] Specifically, it seeks to clarify enforceability and extend protections for employers.[8]
Under the Act, a “covered employee” is one whose salary exceeds twice the annual mean wage for the Florida county where (1) the employer’s principal place of business is located, or (2) if the employer is out of state, the county in Florida where the employee resides.[9] Although the wording seems neutral, using county-level mean wage data to determine employee coverage is problematic. Two counties—Miami-Dade and Liberty—demonstrate how the CHOICE Act’s county-based wage threshold results in unequal outcomes for similarly situated employees. The legislature should replace the county metric with a uniform statewide wage standard to promote fairness and consistency in how Florida regulates noncompete agreements.
II. The Choice Act Creates Incidental Problems
A. Unequal Coverage by County
Consider two Florida workers, both earning $100,000 annually in similar roles. In 2024, Miami-Dade’s average annual wage was roughly $79,000.[10] Two times this amount is approximately $158,000—meaning the CHOICE regime does not cover this worker. In Liberty County, the average annual wage was roughly $48,150.[11] The threshold is approximately $96,000, making the same $100,000 earner a “covered employee” subject to up to four years of noncompete restrictions. Thus, employees with identical roles can face significantly different post-employment limits based on their geographic location. By tying legal exposure to local wage data, the CHOICE Act effectively turns county borders into determinants of worker rights.
B. Equal Protection Under State Law
Florida’s Constitution guarantees equal protection for its citizens and prohibits impairment of the obligations of contracts.[12] While the Court typically applies rational basis review to economic legislation,[13] it is difficult to see a logical link between a worker’s county wage averages and the Act’s legitimate interest in promoting trade and business within the state. This logical discrepancy also undermines Florida’s commitment to equal protection of all its citizens. Identical agreements will yield different outcomes across counties, undermining the aims the Act was designed to promote. The disparity falls hardest on workers in low-wage counties—those with fewer resources and who cannot afford to challenge employment contracts in court.[14]
C. Policy Consequences
In practice, the Act has at least three consequences. First, the Act deepens inequality. Rural and low-wage counties—those most in need of financial assurance—become subject to stricter noncompete rules. This process can concentrate economic advantages in more affluent regions while leaving struggling communities behind. Second, the Act permits employers to move their principal place of business to other counties, expanding their coverage under the Act. In a process analogous to forum shopping,[15] employers can expand coverage and suppress wages in lower-income areas. Third, the Act breeds ambiguity in an era of remote work; CHOICE never clarifies which county’s data applies when an employee resides in one location but performs services elsewhere. Together, these consequences undermine the Act’s stated goal of fostering statewide economic growth, instead entrenching existing disparities and limiting opportunities for the very workers and communities it claims to support.
III. A Statewide Standard for a Statewide Workforce
Florida can preserve the CHOICE Act’s legitimate aims while eliminating geographic inequity. The most effective reform is to replace the county mean wage test with a uniform statewide threshold.
A. Rationale for a Statewide Threshold
Currently, whether a worker is bound by a stricter noncompete depends not on the sensitivity of their position but on where they live. A statewide threshold—set as twice the statewide mean wage or a fixed salary cutoff (for instance, $100,000)—would preserve the Act’s intent to target higher-earning employees, while ensuring equal treatment across Florida’s 67 counties.
B. Advantages of UniformApplication
Equal Treatment: Every employee, regardless of geography, faces the same legal standard.
Predictability: Employers and workers avoid disputes over which county’s wage data applies, particularly for hybrid or remote employees. Predictability can also prevent overburdening court dockets, allowing for more efficient litigation.
Protection of Employer Interests: Employers still have tools to safeguard trade secrets and client relationships, ensuring all companies are on equal footing.
C. Implementation
The Legislature could amend the CHOICE Act to replace the county averages with the statewide mean wage, updated every two years by the Florida Department of Commerce (FloridaCommerce). Existing “covered” contracts could be grandfathered to minimize disruption, and courts should interpret the “principal place of business” provision flexibly to prevent abuse. This single statutory change would restore fairness and predictability without weakening employer protection.
Conclusion
Florida’s CHOICE Act attempts—but fails—to enforce restrictions on employees while promoting the economy. The primary issue is the Act’s reliance on county-specific wage data, which restricts the employment opportunities of certain employees. By coupling noncompete enforceability with local wage averages, the Act measures an employee’s worth to their zip code. This approach favors those in wealthier neighborhoods and disadvantages those in poorer areas, thereby limiting economic mobility. Reforming this Act with a statewide standard can bring consistency and fairness, while also protecting employer interests. Employers can still protect trade secrets, but employees now have more opportunities for economic mobility. This statewide baseline would reflect the realities of the modern workforce, where people are interconnected. Only with statewide standards can the Florida Legislature achieve its intended goal.
[2] Matthew S. Johnson, Kurt J Lavetti & Michael Lipsitz, The Labor Market Effects of Legal Restrictions on Worker Mobility, NBER Working Paper No. 31929 1, 6, 16 (2023).
[13] Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955) (holding state law regulating opticians did not violate the due process clause because economic regulations are presumed constitutional if plausible rational basis supports them).
[14]See Emery G Lee, Law Without Lawyers: Access to Civil Justice, 69 Univ. Miami L. Rev. 499, 502 (2015). (reporting median civil litigation costs of about US$15,000).
Can privacy exist in the digital age? Most at least hope (if not entirely expect) that our associations and communications are generally private and protected under the First and Fourth Amendments.[1] We figure that so long as we do not actively broadcast the intimate details of our lives to the world at large (e.g., taking obnoxiously loud phone calls in crowded public spaces, making incriminatingly controversial public social media posts, etc.), our dealings will remain our own.
But in recent years, technology has begun to shift expectations of privacy. Growing numbers of Americans are expressing concerns about how collected personal data is being used, both by private companies and by the government.[2] Many companies have responded with marketing campaigns highlighting end-to-end encryption features or on-device processing updates.[3] But these solutions fail to address the root cause of the public’s unease: bewildering privacy laws.[4] The fast-paced innovations of the private sector often seem to leave judicial processes in the dust. Many of the legal principles at the foundation of privacy law seem inapplicable and woefully dated. Perhaps the most major of these principles—the reasonable expectation of privacy test—is derived from the landmark Supreme Court decision, Katz v. United States.[5]
At issue in Katz was the warrantless wiretapping of a public telephone booth used for out-of-state gambling.[6] The government argued that because there was no physical penetration of the booth there had been no Constitutional violation, and the conversations overheard through the wiretap were thus admissible as evidence.[7] The Court disagreed.[8] It held that in light of certain technological developments, the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections could no longer exclusively apply to physical trespasses but must instead be interpreted more broadly.[9] Though the majority is fairly vague as to the qualifying factors of this interpretation, Justice Harlan’s concurrence introduces a two-part test.[10] This test essentially laid the modern foundation for Constitutional privacy protections, requiring that (1) a person exhibits an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and (2) that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.[11]
While initially this seemed like a fine enough test, its circularity became evident as society’s expectations evolved. In Smith v. Maryland, a little over ten years later, the Court applied the Katz test to determine whether an individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone numbers they dialed on their landline.[12] The Court determined that no right to privacy existed for two reasons.[13] Firstly, the individual, by dialing the numbers, knowingly conceded the information to the telephone company, i.e., a third party, and thus failed to exhibit an expectation of privacy.[14] Secondly, society would not deem this expectation of privacy reasonable because presumably everyone knows that telephone companies save this information for billing purposes.[15] Justice Marshall dissented, with the cryptic warning that the legitimacy of our privacy expectations should not be nullified by our inevitable use of third-party technology that has become an indispensable part of modern life.[16]
Fast forward another thirty years or so and the cracks of the Katz test spread further. In United States v. Jones, the Court inquired whether the government’s installation of a tracking device on an individual’s car constituted an unlawful search.[17] The Court found that it did, but rather than applying its usual Katz analysis, the Court reverts to the traditional trespass doctrine, on the basis that this case involved the physical installation of a device on the individual’s property.[18] Yet two prophetic concurrences were frustrated by the missed opportunity to reevaluate Katz in relation to modern surveillance powers.
The concurrences, written by Justices Sotomayor and Alito, discuss the potential complications of the circularity of the Katz test. Justice Sotomayor points out that the third-party doctrine derived from Katz is “ill-suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”[19] This “great deal of information” is often disclosed only for a limited purpose and should not lose all Fourth Amendment protections in that process.[20] Justice Alito then draws attention to the fatal flaw of the Katz test: its assumption that society has developed a stable, unchanging set of privacy expectations at all.[21] Justice Alito notes that the Katz test rests on the assumption that a hypothetic reasonable person has a well-developed and stable set of privacy expectations that remain consistent in the face of dramatic technological change. [22] But this is an unrealistic assumption—popular expectations may fluctuate as society seeks increased convenience and security at the expense of privacy; even those that do not find the tradeoff worthwhile may consider the loss of privacy inevitable.[23]
Both Justice Sotomayor’s and Justice Alito’s concerns are perhaps best illustrated by current public sentiments. There is an overwhelming concern regarding personal data usage and a notable discrepancy between the level of privacy society has come to “expect,” and the level of privacy it would prefer (and presumably deem reasonable). With data collection technology developing at such a rapid pace, it is hard for any person to have a solid idea of which privacies are protected. It may be time for the Court to refine its definition of “reasonable expectations.”
[17] United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 402 (2012).
[18]Id. at 404–05 (reasoning that by mounting a GPS tracking device on an individual’s car, the Government had physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information – an action that would undoubtably have been considered a trespassory “search” within “the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”).
[19]Jones, 565 U.S. at 417 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).
Few objects command more loyalty from American teenagers than the glowing rectangles in their pockets. Cell phones have become lifelines, entertainment consoles, and—at least in theory—educational tools. Yet they are also distractions of the highest order. As one New Hampshire student recently admitted, a statewide ban on school-day phone use forced him to actually “do work” during downtime.[1] That confession might make any teacher smile.
This blog post examines the emerging legal and policy landscape of cell-phone bans in public schools, with particular focus on New Hampshire’s new statewide “bell-to-bell” prohibition. It also considers Vermont’s parallel efforts, nationwide trends, and developments abroad. While bans like New Hampshire’s likely advance learning and social well-being, their legal implications—touching on parental rights, due process, and even the First Amendment—remain unsettled.
I. States Look to Restrict Cell Phones in Schools A. New Hampshire’s Bell-to-Bell Ban
In June, New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte signed a state budget bill including a legislative amendment requiring school boards and charter school trustees to adopt “bell-to-bell” cell-phone bans.[2] Under the new law, students are barred from using cellphones from the first bell to start instructional time until end-of-day dismissal, including during lunch and class transitions.[3] Exceptions exist for medical devices (such as insulin pumps and glucose sensors), accommodations identified in individualized education programs (IEPs), plans developed under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and language-access needs under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4]
Governor Ayotte championed the measure as a way to “restor[e] classrooms as spaces dedicated to learning, collaboration, and student well-being.”[5] A gubernatorial press release framed it as a win for students’ focus, teachers’ sanity, and parents’ peace of mind.[6] Supporters cited research linking excessive screen use with adolescent anxiety, depression, and sleep deprivation, as well as school-level data showing reduced behavioral issues and cyberbullying when phones are banned.[7] In other words, New Hampshire has embraced the radical notion that schools are for education, not Snapchat.
B. Vermont: Following Close Behind
Neighboring Vermont has enacted a similar law to take effect for the 2026–27 school year.[8] But many Vermont schools have already experimented with restrictions. Teachers at Spaulding High School in Barre require students to surrender phones on a classroom counter at the start of class.[9] Harwood Union Middle and High School adopted Yondr magnetic lock pouches, funded in part by leftover federal COVID-19 relief money.[10] Thetford Academy, serving as a public school for several towns, banned phones even before the statewide mandate after a community advocacy campaign garnered strong support for immediate action.[11]
Vermont educators report familiar frustrations: students distracted by social media, parents texting midday, and the awkward phenomenon of a cafeteria full of teenagers staring silently at screens.[12] Teachers describe phone-free days as restoring authentic conversation and student attentiveness.[13] Don Tinney, president of the Vermont chapter of the National Education Association, posed the rhetorical question: “If we can’t get a handle on this in our schools, where will we get control over these digital devices?”[14]
C. Nationwide Developments
New Hampshire and Vermont are hardly alone. More than half of U.S. states have adopted restrictions.[15] Texas, for instance, passed House Bill 1481 in May, 2025, requiring districts to curtail phone use.[16] Teachers there report more eye contact and—quaintly—students rediscovering Uno cards.[17]
New York recently mandated magnetic pouches statewide.[18] Students keep their phones but cannot unlock them until the school day ends, a system praised by administrators but tested by enterprising teens who attempt to dismantle the pouches.[19] Florida led the charge in 2023 by banning phones outright during instructional hours, and other states quickly followed.[20]
The sheer diversity of approaches—total bans, pouch systems, “out of sight, out of mind” policies—underscores the lack of consensus on how to balance discipline, safety, and practicality.
II. Benefits and Concerns
The reasons to restrict phones are well-documented. Phones distract from academic work, facilitate cheating, perpetuate cyberbullying, and exacerbate mental health challenges.[21] Schools report that bans improve engagement and reduce disciplinary incidents.[22] The U.S. Surgeon General has even warned that social media poses “a profound risk of harm” to youth mental health and well-being.[23]
Yet there are counterpoints. Phones provide parents peace of mind during emergencies, assist with after-school logistics, and serve as educational tools when properly integrated.[24] Some parents view confiscation or extended retention of devices as infringing upon their due process rights to direct their children’s upbringing.[25] Enforcement also strains school resources and may foster resentment.
Even students themselves are ambivalent. As one Vermont high schooler acknowledged, “every student … does know they’re addicted to their phone,” but that does not make giving it up easy.[26]
III. Legal Framework and Challenges A. Parental Rights and Due Process
A prominent concern is whether school bans impermissibly interfere with parents’ constitutional rights. Plaintiff families have argued that confiscation and retention policies beyond school hours may violate the Fourteenth Amendment due process rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.[27] Courts have historically recognized this right, though its scope in the educational context remains contested.[28]
B. Free Speech and the First Amendment
Two classic precedents—Tinker[29] and Hazelwood[30]—establish that students retain constitutional rights but that schools may regulate expression when necessary to preserve order or educational purpose. Some scholars suggest that outright phone bans could implicate students’ right to receive information in the digital era.[31] Mary Beth Tinker herself has expressed skepticism about unfettered phone use, noting the documented harms to youth health.[32]
Still, a phone is not inherently “speech,” and bans typically regulate the device rather than content. Courts would likely uphold restrictions narrowly tailored to educational goals, particularly with exceptions for medical and disability accommodations.[33]
C. Privacy and Enforcement
Confiscation policies raise privacy concerns. For example, what happens if a teacher inadvertently views private messages or data on a seized device? Scholars caution that schools must tread carefully to avoid Fourth Amendment violations.[34]
D. Comparative Perspective: The United Kingdom
The debate is not uniquely American. In July, two British fathers launched a legal challenge against the British Department for Education, arguing that failure to mandate schoolwide bans violated children’s human rights.[35] They seek a judicial review to compel a nationwide prohibition, citing concerns about exposure to pornography and violent content.[36] Meanwhile, political leaders remain divided; current Prime Minister Keir Starmer has dismissed mandatory bans as unnecessary, noting that most schools already restrict phones.[37]
The British litigation highlights a novel twist: framing smartphone access as a human rights issue, not merely a matter of discipline. Whether such arguments will persuade British courts remains to be seen, but the case underscores the global resonance of the debate.
IV. Policy Considerations
From a policy standpoint, bell-to-bell bans simplify enforcement, promote equity, and minimize distraction. But implementation costs—pouches, staff training, security infrastructure—can be substantial.[38] Moreover, blanket bans may ignore legitimate educational uses of smartphones for language learning, research, or accessibility. A nuanced approach may be preferable, though nuance is often harder to enforce than a flat rule.
Ultimately, the law grants schools broad latitude to regulate student conduct, provided policies are reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and respectful of constitutional limits. Still, as potential litigation looms, states would be wise to draft bans with explicit exceptions, parental consultation, and annual review processes—as New Hampshire’s law already requires.[39] Of course, including student voices where feasible should certainly be encouraged as well.[40]
Conclusion
Some teenagers may view phone bans as cruel and unusual punishment, but the evidence suggests otherwise. From New Hampshire to Texas, schools report increased focus, better mental health, and even more human conversation when phones are set aside. That said, unresolved legal questions remain. How far schools can go without infringing parental rights? Do such bans implicate free speech rights? How enforcement avoids privacy violations?
New Hampshire’s bell-to-bell model seems to offer a promising blueprint. It balances firm restrictions with necessary exceptions, signals a cultural shift toward reclaiming schools as learning spaces, and recognizes the gravity of the distraction problem. Whether courts ultimately bless such laws will determine if “phone-free schools” become a permanent fixture or a passing experiment. For now, though, the message is simple: put the phone away—your civics assignment awaits.
[3] N.H. Dep’t of Educ., Technical Advisory: Guidance to Public and Chartered Public Schools for Implementing HB2’s “Bell to Bell” Prohibitions on Student Cell Phones and Personal Electronic Communication Devices (2025).
[28]See, e.g., Koch v. Adams, 361 S.W.3d 817, 821 (Ark. 2010) (rejecting a student’s challenge to a school policy that allowed cell-phone confiscation during class, finding the policy constitutional and within the school’s authority to enforce discipline under such rules); Price v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 855 N.Y.S.2d 530, 537 (N.Y. 2008) (upholding city’s ban on students bringing cell phones to school, reasoning that it was reasonably related to educational objectives and did not unduly restrict communication outside school hours).
[29] Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
[30] Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Imagine you’re looking for a housemate. You put an ad out online and find someone who seems trustworthy. You don’t have the capability to do a formal background check; yet, everything about them seems legitimate. Then, a month later, unannounced, probation officers search your home. They find recreational drugs in the common area and arrest your housemate, calling the police to help them secure the drugs. The police come and search the rest of the house, including your bedroom, where they find more recreational drugs. They arrest you and bring possession charges against you. Was that search legal? Should it be?
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our protection against “unreasonable search and seizures.”[1] It further protects us from searches performed without warrants, or under warrants which fail to describe the place or person to be searched.[2] However, probation agreements typically require the probationer to waive these fourth amendment rights.[3] Allowing probation officers to search the probationer’s property for any violations of their agreement—drugs, weapons, contraband—makes sense. Probation is a much more economical alternative to incarceration and is typically seen as both more effective and better for the probationer.[4]
To ensure these programs succeed, the government needs a method to sustain them. Consented-to warrantless searches of probationers’ properties are one such method.[5] Probationers can live with non-probationers. These non-probationers are not party to the probation agreement and therefore haven’t expressly consented to waiving their Fourth Amendment rights. At the federal level, probationers “must warn any other occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant” to their probation agreement.[6]
Both federal and state courts have generally held that anyone knowingly living with a probationer has a diminished right to privacy.[7] Specifically, that the probationer’s consent via their probation agreement renders valid any warrantless search of areas of “shared authority.”[8] This is intuitive. If you know the person you live with is a probationer subject to unannounced, warrantless searches, it follows that you have consented to those searches.[9] By volunteering to live with the probationer, you have volunteered to the conditions of their probation that affect your shared spaces.
But what if you didn’t volunteer to live with a probationer? In our hypothetical, we discussed a situation in which the non-probationer was unaware that their housemate was on probation. The rules from Matlock tell the probationer to warn other occupants of the potential for searches.[10] However, no probation officer would know of any failure to disclose or be able to enforce disclosure until they showed up to the house. Probationers have incentive to not disclose their status to potential roommates to obtain housing. As a result, the burden would be on the potential housemate to ensure they had checked probation records before allowing a new roommate into their home. This seems unfair and unreasonable to expect a layperson to understand this as a risk.
If the probationer did not disclose their status, a housemate would have no way of knowing a search was coming. The Supreme Court’s theory that by knowingly deciding to live with a probationer you’ve consented to the conditions of their probation would “evaporate.”[11] If you don’t know that your housemate is a probationer, you can’t consent to the elements of their agreement which necessarily effect you. Without that consent, any search would not only be without a warrant but would be executed against a person who had not waived their Fourth Amendment rights. Such a search would be unconstitutional.[12] Likewise, any evidence gathered because of a search would be inadmissible.[13] This is a significant gap in the law, which creates the substantial possibility that the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the people of the United States can be flouted quite easily. This gap seems to be unaddressed by the Supreme Court or Federal legislation. It is certainly not fixed by the Federal Probation-Conditions Statute.[14] A search of state statutes likewise turns up little.
The reason for this lack is cited by the Minnesota court in State v. Bursch: courts are unwilling to make rulings on something that could “effectively thwart all probation searches.”[15] One can follow their logic. Exempting any evidence found in a probation search where it could potentially belong to an unknowing household member would create a significant loophole. A strategic probationer would choose to live with housemates to avoid unannounced searches.[16] If this were the case, probation officers would likely cease searching any probationer’s premises if another person lived on it. After all, if any evidence they gathered could be dodged by a claim that it belongs to the unknowing non-probationer why spend the time and money on a search?
So, we find ourselves with a dilemma. Either an unknowing household member is subject to warrantless search or seizure because of their Probationer roommate; or the probationer’s agreement can’t be appropriately enforced. A few cases address this. They have held that evidence found in a search and used against a non-probationer is void if the search was conducted over the “express refusal of consent by a physically present resident.”[17] However, this does not address an issue where a search is conducted when only the Probationer is home, or when no one is home.
This gap must be filled. A statute to address the ambiguity that searches in these circumstances produce. The language of that statute should show proper deference to the Fourth Amendment. Its exact language will not be speculated on here, but it should ensure that probation and parole officers cannot execute a search without a warrant where a non-probationer household member might be unaware of their housemate’s status. Further, this burden of ensuring knowledge should be placed on either the probationer or the probation officer, not the unwitting housemate. That could be as simple as the probationer providing other occupants’ names and contact information, and probation officers ensuring notification of those occupants before commencing the normal unannounced search schedule. Alternatively, it could consist of the housemates signing affidavits or waivers that the probationer delivers to probation upon their initial notification of address. No matter the method, this ambiguity needs a solution which alleviates the burden to an unwitting housemate. A statutory solution would be the clearest and most efficient, and both federal and state legislatures should work to ensure this gap in our law is rectified.
[7]See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S. Ct. 988 (1974) (confirming a non-probationer knowingly living with a probationer have diminished freedoms from warrantless searches); see also United States v. Harden, 104 F.4th 830, 834 (11th Cir. 2024); State v. Bursch, 905 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017); State v. Green, 349 So. 3d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022).
The American criminal justice system is built on the promise of a fair trial. That promise falters when prosecutors pursue cases against defendants with significant mental impairments or fail to carry their burden. Current competency standards, shaped by Dusky v. United States,[1] focus narrowly on a defendant’s ability to communicate with counsel. Ambiguities in the law, lenient procedures, and inconsistent psychiatric evaluations create a system where incompetent defendants may still face trial, while others may be released without ever receiving the treatment needed. Strengthening these standards is essential to protect due process and ensure that justice is not just procedural, but actual.
One of the fundamental principles of the American criminal justice system hinges on the idea that prosecuting an individual who is mentally incompetent violates due process.[2] This right ensures a fair trial, as according to the Supreme Court in Medina v. California competence is considered “the foundational right for the effective exercise of a defendant’s other rights.”[3] These rights include, but are not limited to, the right to counsel, to confront witnesses, and to testify or remain silent.[4] The current standard for competency to stand trial is articulated in Dusky v. United States.[5]Dusky requires an accused to have “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. . . and [must have] a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”[6] The existing legal framework and its practical application reveal several areas where stricter competency standards are necessary to vigorously uphold this fundamental due process right while also balancing the need to protect the welfare of the people.
The flexibility and the ambiguity in applying the Dusky test is a significant aspect that suggests this need for stricter standards. Namely, the mere presence of “some degree of mental illness” or “limited intellectual ability” does not automatically render the accused incompetent.[7] These are “merely relevant factors” to be considered in the midst of proceedings.[8] Furthermore, the use or addiction to illegal substances does not result in incompetence, though “the influence of drugs or the effects of drug withdrawal” could be debilitating enough.[9] This broad consensus can inherently lead to a slippery slope of impaired individuals being deemed competent or competent individuals being deemed incompetent. The spectrum is wide. A stricter standard would require that such significant mental health conditions or severe substance use disorders create a stronger presumption of incompetence that would require the state to meet a higher burden to prove otherwise.
The distinction between a defendant’s capacity to assist counsel and their actual willingness to do so also presents a unique point of concern. The standard focuses on the accused’s “capacity to assist in preparing his or her defense,” not “whether he or she actually cooperates.”[10] This means a defendant who essentially can coherently confer but refuses to engage with their attorney could still be found competent. Even if this behavior is due to paranoid delusions or severe apathy.[11] For instance, even where an accused who spent court sessions scribbling bizarre pictures and muttering conspiracy theories, experts can agree he is still deemed competent to stand trial, despite his inability to sustain a rational conversation. This highlights how a purely “capacity” focused standard overlooks the ultimate inability of an accused to mount an effective defense. This can justify a shift towards requiring active engagement or a more definitive assessment of the underlying reasons for the non-cooperation.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Medina v. California introduced a type of procedural leniency that directly undermines the protective intent of the competency doctrine.[12]Medina allows states to establish a presumption of competence and requires the defendant to bear the burden of proving incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.[13] This decision was heavily criticized by Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens in the dissent, who argue that “a Constitution that forbids the trial and conviction of an incompetent person tolerates the trial and conviction of a person about whom the evidence of competency is so equivocal and unclear.”[14] Justice Blackmun also emphasizes that “the right to be tried while competent is the foundational right for the effective exercise of a defendant’s other rights.”[15] Requiring a potentially incompetent defendant to prove their own mental incapacity introduces an “unacceptably high risk that persons will be tried and convicted who are unable to follow or participate in the proceedings determining their fate.”[16] This dissent essentially highlights that the State is in a superior position to gather evidence of competency over a defendant. The State has direct, unfettered access to a defendant in custody and possesses the resources for the necessary psychiatric evaluations and commitment if needed.[17] Stricter standards would necessitate placing the burden of proving competence on the prosecution in order to adequately protect the underlying due process right.[18] This would further align with other instances where the government bears the burdens for issues that implicate certain constitutional rights.
The nature of psychiatric testimony and its application in competency evaluations also point to weaknesses in the current standards. Psychiatry is acknowledged as an “inexact science,” where “subtleties and nuances of psychiatric diagnosis render certainties virtually beyond reach in most situations.”[19] Clinicians often confuse legal incompetency with psychosis, or may overdiagnose incompetence for humanitarian reasons, or even underdiagnose due to a lack of legal sophistication.[20] This lack of accuracy and potential for misinterpretation means that the “legal question of competency” may not be sufficiently addressed.[21] Stricter standards would require psychiatric evaluations to focus explicitly on the Dusky[22] criteria and the defendant’s functional abilities in the legal context, not just clinical diagnoses. This could create a likelihood of enhancing the overall reliability of the findings. Moreover, Drope v. Missouri cautions that a defendant’s demeanor during trial “cannot be relied upon to dispense with a hearing on that very issue” of competence, specifically when there is “uncontradicted testimony of . . .[a] history of pronounced irrational behavior.”[23] This warning suggests that surface-level impressions of alertness should not outweigh substantial evidence of impairment. Stricter standards would elevate the weight given to complex medical histories and consistent patterns of specific behavior, rather than courtroom demeanor. Additionally, a court may impose a higher standard of competence for a defendant seeking to represent themselves than for merely standing trial. This directly acknowledges that the Dusky standard[24] for simply standing trial might not be sufficient for full engagement in the judicial process.[25] This disparity suggests that the baseline standard for competency to stand trial may itself be too low.
Stricter competency standards would benefit society as a whole by reinforcing the principle of a fair and just criminal justice system. By rigorously ensuring that only individuals with a “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding . . . and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him” stand trial, the government upholds its burden of due process.[26] It would also help protect the overall integrity and public confidence in judicial proceedings and state officials. Nevertheless, this approach could also lead to more accurate adjudications. More accurate adjudications could then help reduce the fiscal and administrative burdens associated with repeated, lengthy, and unnecessary competency evaluations and hospitalizations.[27] This approach would allow a more efficient allocation of both mental health and legal resources.
In summary, the Constitution demands more than a mere inquiry into competency; it requires a safeguard against putting someone on trial who inherently cannot defend themselves. The Dusky standard[28], as applied today, is riddled with ambiguities that tilt the scales against the accused and allow the State to avoid its duty and not bear their burden. Stricter, clearer standards would close those gaps, force the government to prove competence, and ensure trials reflect true fairness.
When a violent act occurs, the harm rarely stops with the primary victim. Family members, loved ones, and even bystanders can be deeply affected, becoming what legal systems call secondary victims.[1] Secondary victims endure trauma—not through direct assault or other means of harm—but through proximity, kinship, or institutional responses that compound suffering.[2] Yet, despite the severity of their harm, secondary victims often remain marginalized in law and policy.
In criminal law, the victim is directly the target of a crime. Specifically, “crime victim or victim of crime means a person who has suffered physical, sexual, financial, or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime.”[3] In United States tort law, a victim is someone who is harmed by an act or omission on the part of the tortfeasor.[4] The secondary victim, however, is the individual indirectly harmed[5]—parents grieving a murdered child, siblings traumatized by abuse within the family, or partners burdened with caring responsibilities. Secondary victims exist in both criminal and tort legal systems because of the violent nature that both systems protect against.
With the definitions of victims and secondary victims in mind, distinguishing between secondary victimization and secondary victims is important, as the terms refer to very different realities, but are often confused. First, under 28 C.F.R. § 103.3, secondary victimization means re-traumatizing a primary victim through institutional or societal responses after the crime.[6] This might occur when police blame a survivor, doctors subject a survivor to invasive or insensitive medical procedures, or in court questioning retraumatizes a survivor .[7] In this sense, the harm is “secondary” because it represents a second layer of injury inflicted upon the same person. Second, by contrast, secondary victims are different individuals who themselves suffer harm because of their connection to the primary victim.[8] Unlike secondary victimization, which deepens the suffering of the direct victim, the harm to secondary victims is independent and distinct, and in some jurisdictions is recognized as actionable.
Different international jurisdictions apply factors test for secondary victims’ harms and recognize cost and losses for secondary victims. For example, Israeli tort law uses a factored test to assess the amount of harm suffered to determine if it is actionable. There, secondary victims are recognized as individuals who suffer compensable harm if: (1) they are family members who witnessed the event or its consequences, (2) there is temporal and spatial proximity between the primary and secondary harms, and (3) the harm suffered by the secondary victim is severe enough to disrupt daily functioning.[9] Further, French personal injury law recognizes not only pecuniary costs, but also non-pecuniary losses.[10] Such as, emotional harm that manifests as a medical condition—like depression—when calculating restitution for victims and secondary victims.[11]
United States case law demonstrates the uneven treatment of secondary victims. In United States v. Terry, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed sentencing enhancements where indirect secondary victims suffered extraordinary psychological harm provided there was a nexus to the offense.[12] In that case, the Court defined victim in the statutes at issue to include the direct victim of the offense of conviction and indirect secondary victims.[13] The Court specifically mentions that an indirect secondary victim is a person with a direct relation to the offense, not a person with a relationship to the direct victim.[14] In United States v. Haggard, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals included family members of a murdered federal officer in victim status, deeming them incidental victims rather than direct victims.[15] In that case, the Circuit Court held that although the deceased federal agent was a direct victim of the crime, the family of the direct victim were also victimized by Haggard’s criminal acts.[16] Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to consider the psychological injury that the family members suffered when considering criminal sentencing.[17]
Beyond sentencing, restitution also exposes the lack of recognition for secondary victims. Under the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act (MVRA), U.S. courts generally confine restitution to direct victims.[18] In United States v.Riviera-Solis, the District Court denied restitution for psychological service costs to the relatives of the murdered victim because they had not suffered bodily injury.[19] The Court conceded that the two secondary victims were indeed victims in their own right.[20] However, the Court was unable to order restitution due to the MVRA’s definitions and prior precedent. The MVRA’s narrow definition limits a courts ability to grant restitution to secondary victims. Specifically, a victim under the MVRA is “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense.”[21] By excluding secondary victims from the definition, the MVRA restricts secondary victims from receiving recognition that could have helped them to recover and heal from harm that they indirectly experienced. Not recognizing this unique category of victims creates the risk of reinforcing a hierarchy of suffering that undervalues the psychological burdens experienced by secondary victims.
Recognition can help. Secondary victim’s experiences are not limited to emotional grief; these experiences extend into disrupted livelihoods, health deterioration, and strained relationships. Recognizing this extension of harm is not an act of generosity; it is a matter of justice.
[1]Tort Law: What Qualifies You as a Secondary Victim, LegalClarity (Aug. 31. 2025), https://legalclarity.org/what-qualifies-you-as-a-secondary-victim/ (defining a secondary victim as one “who suffers injury, typically psychiatric, from witnessing or apprehending harm to another person, known as the primary victim. Unlike primary victims, who are directly involved and physically harmed, secondary victims are indirectly affected by observing the event’s impact”).
[19]See United States v. Riviera-Solis, 733 F.Supp.3d 46, 55 (D. Puerto Rico 2024).
[20]Id.; United States v. Patton, 651 Fed. Appx 423, 427 (6th Cir. 2016) (stating “[b]ecause the victim’s spouses suffered no bodily injury, the district court erred in awarding them lost wages under the MVRA”); United States v. Harwood, 854 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1063 (Dist. N.M. 2012) (holding that the “plain language [of the MVRA […] confines the scope of restitution for psychological services to when the victim has suffered a ‘bodily injury’”).
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”[1] Marked by the end of the Civil War, on January 31, 1865, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.[2] The Thirteenth Amendment proclaims the abolition of slavery. However, embedded within the language, a loophole exists. Enshrined in the exception clause, a modern form of slavery continues to exist.[3] Slavery is defined as “the practice of keeping individuals in such a state of bondage or servitude.”[4]
Since this amendment, prisoners have been subjected to involuntary servitude. A prisoner can be forced to work or withstand punishment like solitary confinement or even physical beatings.[5] At least six Circuit Courts have held “the presence of forced labor is viewed as a reality of imprisonment and not an unconstitutional punishment.”[6] However, many unknowns still exist with respect to the Thirteenth Amendment’s applicability. For example, is the Amendment meant to encompass forced unpaid labor, or can it also encompass a prisoner who is paid an egregiously low wage?[7] In 2017, the average prison wage in all 50 states ranged from 33 cents per hour to $1.41, whereas the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.[8] Despite the Fifth Circuit diverging from the majority of circuits, the Court held in Watson that a “prisoner who is not sentenced to hard labor retains his Thirteenth Amendment rights.”[9] Ultimately the petitioner in Watson lost because they were paid for their labor. [10]
In addition to low wages, inmates also suffer from very few job protections. Incarcerated workers aren’t covered by basic protections such as worker’s compensation or federal safety standards.[11] The lack of safety standards have resulted in death. For example, Frank Dwayne Ellington was sentenced to life in prison for stealing a wallet at gunpoint—a result of Alabama’s Habitual Offenders Act. In 2017, Ellington, “was cleaning a machine near the chicken ‘kill line’…at Koch Foods…when the whirling teeth caught his arm and sucked him inside, crushing his skull.”[12] Frank Ellington died instantly. Koch Foods argued that Ellington wasn’t an employee.[13] The case eventually settled, but Koch Foods was fined because workers had not been given proper training.[14] Despite all this, prison labor continues to seep into the supply chain both in the United States and internationally.[15]
Affecting change will require taking a unique path. Repealing the exception clause in the Thirteenth Amendment can take years and remains pending on the federal level since 2023.[16] More recently several states have amended their constitutions curtailing the use of prison labor.[17] In 2022, Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont all approved ballot measures that could restrain the use of prison labor.[18] Vermonters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional change (“Proposal 2”) banning slavery and indentured servitude in November 2022.[19] At least a dozen more states have language in their constitution that still permits slavery and involuntary servitude for prisoners, while several other states still have no language permitting or denying forced prison labor.[20] Lawmakers have raised questions about if these amendments will address inmates being paid below minimum wage for their work or only address forced labor. The Vermont Department of Corrections will continue to employ incarcerated workers for pay because Proposal 2 only concerns forced labor. [21]
While abolition of slavery in state constitutions is a necessary first step for eradicating forced labor, additional legislation on the state and federal levels that address specific issues surrounding inmate wages, employee protections, and safety training is imperative. Additional legislative measures may also arise as we address issues such as exploitation of workers in large companies, policies surrounding employment for inmate’s post release, drug policies, and public health policies.
[1] U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 (emphasis added).
Intellectual Property (IP) law walks the line between protecting the originality of creative works and maintaining a free marketplace of ideas.[1] Recipes, however, have long presented a challenge to that balance because they do not fit neatly into the traditional avenues of intellectual property protection. While social media platforms have exacerbated the flaws of IP law in the food context, they may also present an alternative means of justice for food creators to protect their intellectual property.
Four traditional avenues exist for intellectual property protection: (1) trademarks, (2) trade secrets, (3) copyrights, and (4) patents.[2] Each presents unique challenges for recipe developers. This leaves food content creators with no perfect legal recipe for recipe protection.[3]
First, industry professionals favor trademarks as their primary form of IP protection in the food industry, but social media complicates that favoritism.[4] Trademarks protect words, names, symbols, or devices used to identify and distinguish goods or services and indicate their source.[5] Trademarks can include names or symbols associated with a recipe or food product, provided they are used in commerce to identify the source of the goods.[6] For example, a restaurant name or a branded food product associated with a recipe may qualify for trademark protection. While companies trademark many food items, think Tootsie Rolls or Oreos, it is difficult for food creators to meet the requirements.[7] If a creator is only using a recipe as social media content, that recipe is not used in commerce and cannot be trademarked.[8]
Next, trade secrets provide clear protection for recipes while also having a clear downside in the context of social media creators. As the name implies, trade secret protection applies to information that derives economic value from not being generally known.[9] This presents an obvious problem for recipe creators, whose online platform consists of them sharing their recipes. Therefore, trade secrets are not a good option for food content creators.
Continuing to copyrights, despite being an easy solution for cookbook authors, content creators have difficulty getting copyright protection. Copyrights protect original works from unauthorized reproduction and distribution.[10] In the recipe context, copyrights protect the expressive text of a recipe which can include the list and sequence of ingredients, the precise language and grammar of step-by-step instructions, prose descriptions, personal anecdotes, and creative styling.[11] However, copyrights do not cover recipes that are mere lists of ingredients with basic instructions.[12] Therefore, recipes alone are rarely given copyright protection unless they contain a sufficient degree of originality and creative expression.[13] The distinction between barebones recipes and those with additional creative or literary content is especially fuzzy in the context of social media.
Finally, patent protection for recipes is similarly elusive. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants patents for new and useful processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter.[14] This can be useful for recipe developers, since they seek to protect the processes of cooking that a recipe contains. However, to obtain a patent, a recipe must be novel, non-obvious, and useful.[15] These can be difficult hurdles to overcome, unless the recipe demonstrates a cooperative relationship between ingredients that produces an unexpected result. Online recipe content creators rely more on volume of posting than intricacy of recipe to create content.
So, what recourse do content creators have when others steal their recipes and intellectual property law offers no remedy? Social media provides a solution: put justice into the hands of the people. Social media’s public nature gives creators an avenue to publicly air their grievances while using time stamps to prove the originality of their creations. This could lead to alternative dispute resolutions between the original creator and their imitators, or it could mean a trial by public opinion. Whatever the result, it is a meaningful mechanism for justice outside of established intellectual property law.
The legal system’s failure to protect food content creators’ intellectual property is not a recipe for disaster. Social media provides a unique opportunity for food content creators to take justice into their own hands.
[1] Kurt M. Saunders & Valerie Flugge, Food for Thought: Intellectual Property protection for recipes and food designs, 19 Duke Law and Tech. Rev. 159, 159. (2021).
The CDC defines intimate partner violence as abuse or aggression that occurs in a romantic relationship. The definition applies to both current and former spouses and dating partners.[1] Intimate partner violence can include physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression.[2] In the United States alone, domestic violence is responsible for roughly 1,500 homicides annually.[3] Intimate partner violence is often synonymous with domestic violence, although domestic abuse can extend to children or other relatives. However, both New York and Vermont compile both intimate partner violence and domestic violence in annual reports for homicide statistics. New York reports have remained consistent in firearms not being the leading cause of death. By adopting similar laws, Vermont could benefit from New York’s approach and prevent future deaths.
Vermont and New York report differing statistics for gun violence. In 2022, Vermont reported that firearms caused death for 81% of the homicides in domestic violence.[4] Notably, domestic violence homicide has decreased from 71% of the total homicides per year in 1994 to 23% in 2022.[5] Although the rates varied from 1994 to 2022, the overall trend is . In one respect, the homicide rate is declining, but a constant remains true: firearms have been the leading cause of death since 1994 and are still the leading cause nearly thirty years later.[6] By contrast, in New York in 2022, domestic violence accounted for 16% of all homicides for that year.[7] The leading cause of death in domestic violence homicides was a knife, cutting instrument, or blunt objects at 45% of the total homicides.[8] Firearm deaths accounted for 23% of total homicides.[9] Similar to Vermont, New York has also seen a decline in domestic homicides.[10]
Domestic violence incidents involving firearms present a significantly higher risk of fatality. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.[11] Additionally, firearms are used to commit more than three in five of all intimate partner homicides in the United States.[12] Domestic violence homicides involving firearms contribute to more than half of all mass shootings.[13] Approximately one-third of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence, indicating a direct consequence of mass shootings.[14] These statistics emphasize the need for comprehensive measures to control firearm access to prevent intimate partner deaths and broader violence.
New York and Vermont also have differing population sizes. New York’s population is significantly larger than Vermont’s. New York’s population is 19.9 million; while, Vermont’s population is 648,000. Along with a larger population, New York has the highest demand for domestic violence-related services in the country.[15] So, how can one of the most populous states in the country not have firearms as the top cause of death in domestic violence homicides? The answer might be hidden within gun control laws.
Federal law prevents firearm ownership for individuals convicted of domestic abuse and requires the surrender of any firearms an individual possesses.[16] Although federal protection exists, a gap remains due to the lack of legal protection for victims seeking protection orders., It is often left to individual states to fill this gap in legislation. The issue often is whether a state has laws requiring individuals to relinquish firearms when a protection order is issued. This is not just supplementary protection. Laws affecting the safety and well-being of domestic violence victims have a significant impact. The severity of the impact could result in further harm or even death.
Victims of domestic violence trauma should not be required to make extra efforts to secure their physical safety. Vermont and New York both have background check requirements for the purchase of firearms and prohibit domestic abusers under restraining orders from purchasing firearms.[17] However, Vermont’s legal protections for victims fall short in preventing future gun violence.[18] Vermont does not require individuals to surrender their firearms immediately when a restraining order is issued against them.[19] Vermont does allow family or other household members to make such orders necessary to protect the plaintiff or the children in the case.[20] However, this places an extra undue burden on a victim, likely suffering from trauma already. In New York, when temporary orders of protection are placed against domestic abusers, the court orders the surrender of their firearms to prevent harm to victims.[21] Additionally, New York imposes additional charges against an individual who fails to surrender their firearms. An individual is subject to a class A misdemeanor.[22]
The discourse between gun ownership and preventing domestic violence homicides is a complex and nuanced topic. New York is currently ranked as one of the strongest gun control states in the country.[23] Additionally, New York dodges firearms as the leading cause of death in domestic violence homicides. The correlation between a strong legal framework to protect potential victims and reduce their burden is something Vermont could adopt through analogous legislation. Vermont could prevent future domestic violence deaths by adopting similar gun restrictions like New York. Additionally, Vermont could address the ongoing issue of gun violence that consistently impacts its annual homicide rates.
[15] Joan Gerhardt, NY State Coal. Against Domestic Violence, Testimony of The New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence to the Joint Budget Hearing Regarding Public Protection, Before the Joint Budget Hearing of the Senate Finance Committee and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee (2025).
Error: Only up to 6 widgets are supported in this layout. If you need more add your own layout.
Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.
