“Our firm has noticed a recent uptick in clients contacting us to discuss divorce proceedings, specifically with concerns about possible changes in law regarding no-fault divorces,” Gaudio noted. “Awareness of no-fault divorce has grown significantly in recent years, alongside concerns about the potential for local governments to limit or eliminate its availability.”
No-fault divorce simply means that either spouse can file for divorce without needing to provide evidence that the other spouse was at fault for the separation. California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorce in 1969, and over the next four decades, every other state followed suit, finishing with New York in 2010.
“In a fault divorce, one spouse claims that the other is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage due to specific wrongful conduct,” Gaudio explained. “Unlike no-fault divorces, a fault divorce requires proving that one spouse’s actions caused the separation. Therefore, if no-fault divorce laws were overturned, proving a fault ground ― such as adultery, cruelty or abandonment ― would become necessary to obtain a divorce.”
A growing list of conservative politicians, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have spoken out against no-fault divorce in recent years, and some have even introduced legislation that would roll back these laws. Many of the advisers on the Project 2025 right-wing policy initiative have also proposed restricting or eliminating no-fault divorce.
“Regardless of where either spouse sits on the political spectrum and the disagreements the election results produced, there is an increase in interest in divorce following the election because couples in peril know the ease with which an individual can unilaterally pursue divorce based on ‘no fault’ may be subject to change,” said Alan R. Feigenbaum, a matrimonial and family law partner at Blank Rome in New York City. “I have not noticed this level of interest after prior elections.”
The lawyers who spoke to HuffPost emphasized that overturning no-fault divorce laws would make it harder to obtain a divorce.
“Women in particular are concerned with the restriction or elimination of no-fault divorces as they have been shown to reduce domestic violence, female suicide rates and other societal harms since their increase in states across the country throughout the 1970s to today,” Gaudio said.
Indeed, victims of domestic violence might be less likely to seek a divorce or report their abuse when faced with the prospect of a long and painful legal battle in which they would need to provide proof of wrongdoing and potentially face retaliation and intimidation from their spouse.
“The new administration’s legislative agenda may well prioritize the institution of marriage to such a degree that one cannot exit a marriage ― even where there may be an objectively toxic environment or, worse, violence ― without demonstrating an illusory threshold of ‘fault,’” Feigenbaum said. “The notion that we can have federal involvement in divorce law, or a transition whereby more states shift back in time to support fault-based divorce, is not something to be ignored.”
“That type of transition has the potential to make the divorce process more costly and painful,” he added. “People break up. Our courts should not be burdened with figuring out whodunit, so to speak.”
The issue of cost and burden on the court system is why Bond is optimistic that no-fault divorce will be less of a policy priority.
“We just don’t have the judicial resources for that,” she said. “Are people really willing to take our family law system and make it significantly more expensive? It also feels very antithetical to being an American to say you should have to stay with someone for the rest of your life even if you’re miserable.”
