Mandatory arrest laws, which require that a police officer make an arrest if they have probable cause to believe that a crime of domestic violence has been committed, were once widely embraced as a tool for curtailing domestic violence. States rushed to pass these laws, while academics and advocates generally applauded such efforts. But almost as quickly as these laws were enacted, their perverse consequences began to emerge. Today, a consensus exists that mandatory arrest laws do not protect victims of domestic violence, nor do they deter these crimes. Experts agree that mandatory arrest laws pose significant harmful consequences and have advocated for their repeal. Advocacy groups that once championed these laws no longer defend them, and the federal government has silently stopped promoting them. All of this poses the question: why have states not repealed their mandatory arrest laws?
These laws remain on the books in twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia, with sixteen of those jurisdictions requiring at least one arrest if there is probable cause to believe abuse occurred, no matter the circumstances.2This Article takes a comprehensive look at how the dialogue surrounding mandatory arrest laws has changed—and why these laws are still on the books. It sheds light on the pervasive gap between the consensus among scholars and activists that mandatory arrest laws are more harmful than helpful and the persistence of these laws. It argues that the endurance of these laws is partly a product of a perverse incentive structure and the shortcomings of the legislative process.
Hayley S. Brower, Laws Enacted Will Stay Enacted: Why are Mandatory Arrest Laws Still Commonplace?, 29 J. Gender, Race & Just. 313 (2026).