Marsy's Law

Marsy's Law is the name given to a family of crime victims' bill of rights amendments to U.S. state constitutions. The amendments are modeled on a template promoted by the advocacy organization Marsy's Law for All, and they give crime victims constitutional rights in criminal proceedings, such as notice of hearings and a say in them. California was the first state to adopt the model, when voters approved Proposition 9 in 2008 with 53.8% of the vote.^[1] As of February 2026, 15 states had passed Marsy's Law amendments.^[1]

Supporters present the amendments as putting victims on a more equal footing with the accused. Critics, including the analyst Walter Olson, argue that some provisions cut into defendants' rights and into public access to government records.^[2] Courts have split: some amendments were struck down on procedural grounds, others were upheld, and state supreme courts have limited how far the privacy provisions reach.

Background in victims' rights amendments

Marsy's Law is the most recent wave of a longer movement. Between 1982 and early 2026, voters in 39 states decided 58 ballot measures on crime victims' rights, 57 of them constitutional amendments. Of those amendments, 55 created or expanded victims' rights and two limited them.^[1] Ballotpedia counts 35 approvals and one defeat between 1982 and 1999. Since 2004 it counts 21 approvals, 71.4% of them Marsy's Law measures.^[1]

Eight of the 15 states that passed Marsy's Law amendments already had a crime victims' bill of rights in their constitutions.^[1] Voters have never rejected a measure that would establish or expand crime victims' rights. The only such amendment to fail was South Carolina's Amendment 1 in 1998.^[1]

Typical provisions

The text differs from state to state. The Wisconsin amendment, approved in April 2020, illustrates the usual package. It covers victims' privacy, timely disposition of cases, help securing full restitution, and participation in plea and parole hearings. It also lets victims refuse depositions, which makes it harder for defendants to pursue claims against them.^[3] Olson describes the template as limiting defense discovery by allowing victims to refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request.^[2]

Court challenges

Procedural challenges

The supreme courts of Montana and Pennsylvania struck down their states' amendments for violating single-subject rules, which require a constitutional amendment to cover only one subject.^[1][2] Kentucky's amendment was overturned because the secretary of state had not met a publication requirement. Kentucky voters approved it again in 2020.^[1]

On May 16, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 6–1 to uphold the state's amendment, with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissenting. The challengers, the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, argued that the ballot question described the amendment in one sentence and did not warn voters that it would reduce defendants' rights. The court held that a constitutional amendment only needs to be submitted to voters for ratification and that a ballot description is not subject to that kind of scrutiny.^[3]

Defendants' rights

Olson argues that the Marsy's Law template conflicts with defendants' rights in several ways. He points to the discovery limits described above, and to wording that drops language recognizing a trial court's power to limit victims' attendance when sequestration is needed for a fair trial. He also notes that Wisconsin's drafters removed earlier statutory language saying that nothing in the victims' rights law limits any right of the accused.^[2]

Police officers and public records

Police unions in some states have invoked Marsy's Law to keep officers' names secret after fatal shootings, on the basis that the amendments bar release of information that could be used to locate or harass a victim. In Florida this conflicted with the constitutional guarantee of public access to government records.^[2]

On November 30, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court ruled unanimously, with six justices participating, that the provision does not give police officers or other victims a categorical right to anonymity. It held that the ban on releasing information that could be used to locate or harass a victim does not cover a person's identity itself, so departments may release the names of officers involved in fatal shootings. The court did not decide whether officers injured in the line of duty can qualify as crime victims.^[4]

Recent developments

Tennessee voters were scheduled to decide on a Marsy's Law amendment in 2026. If approved, Tennessee would be the 16th state to adopt one.^[1]