NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Couples across the United States have had access to no-fault divorce for over five decades, a provision that many believe is essential for protecting victims of domestic abuse and easing the burden on already crowded family courts. This option allows individuals to seek divorce without having to prove wrongdoing on the part of their spouse.
Concerns arose, however, when comments made by Vice President-elect JD Vance during the presidential campaign surfaced, indicating his opposition to no-fault divorce. Following the election victory of President-elect Donald Trump and Vance, social media became abuzz with warnings for women contemplating divorce to act quickly before potential legislative changes could limit their options. As a result, some attorneys reported an increase in inquiries for divorce consultations.
While Trump himself, a two-time divorcee, has not actively pushed for changes to divorce laws, Vance has expressed views that suggest divorce is too easily obtainable. He made statements at a Christian school in California, lamenting what he perceived as a trend where individuals “shift spouses like they change their underwear,” highlighting his belief that divorce contributes to significant family dysfunction impacting children.
Despite these troubling signs for advocates of no-fault divorce, even those pushing for stricter divorce laws do not anticipate immediate or widespread changes. Since divorce regulations are determined at the state level, there is no concerted national movement to modify them. Beverly Willett, co-chair of the Coalition for Divorce Reform, noted that efforts to repeal no-fault divorce laws in various states have faltered, even in traditionally conservative areas.
Mark A. Smith, a political science professor at the University of Washington, pointed out that the growing visibility of Vance’s comments might rekindle discussions around making divorces harder to secure, an issue that has remained largely untouched for years. He emphasized that as no-fault divorce becomes a widely accepted norm, the recent discourse may open channels for legislative action.
In 2022, the Republican Party platforms in Texas and Nebraska included calls for abolishing no-fault divorce, and Louisiana’s GOP briefly considered similar measures. However, past attempts to introduce related legislation in conservative-governed states have typically stalled soon after being proposed.
In Oklahoma, Sen. Dusty Deevers introduced a bill seeking to prevent married couples from citing incompatibility as grounds for divorce, echoing a sentiment he expressed in a media piece denouncing no-fault divorce. Other legislative efforts in South Carolina and South Dakota aimed to impose more stringent requirements for obtaining no-fault divorces but have not garnered much traction.
Democratic officials are voicing concerns regarding the potential erosion of no-fault divorce rights, drawing parallels to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn abortion rights. They highlight the importance of remaining vigilant against such legislative encroachments, suggesting that silence could allow regressive policies to take root.
The United States was first introduced to no-fault divorce options in California in 1969. Prior to this, couples had to prove their spouse’s wrongdoing to be granted a divorce, a challenging and often distressing process, particularly for domestic abuse victims, who were frequently compelled to undergo extensive legal proceedings to prove their situation in court.
Currently, all states in the U.S. permit some form of no-fault divorce. However, 33 states still maintain lists of “faults” that can be cited as reasons for divorce, while only 17 states allow couples the choice of selecting no-fault as their sole route to end a marriage.
The movement to reform no-fault divorce gained some attention in the late 1990s, spurred on by concerns about rising divorce rates, leading to the introduction of “covenant marriages” in a few states, including Louisiana. This alternative did not replace existing divorce laws but offered couples a more restrictive option involving counseling and additional hurdles for divorce.
Looking forward, advocates like Christian F. Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women, voice significant apprehension regarding the future of no-fault divorce amid a potential Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress. Nunes argues that restricting access to no-fault divorce is not only a step backward for women’s rights but also a broader move against same-sex marriage.
As discussions continue, Willett expresses caution about the changing political landscape and its possible implications. While she acknowledges that previous comments may signal a shifting tide, she emphasizes that there has yet to be a substantial ongoing discussion among lawmakers about the future of no-fault divorce.