This article was originally published by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for their newsletter, or follow The Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.
If the woman known as M.E. had lived with her girlfriend in North Carolina, she could have gotten significant legal protection once their relationship turned abusive. She would also have been eligible for that help — a domestic violence protective order — if her ex had been a man.
But because she did not share a home with her same-sex partner, a judge said she could not use the threat of jail to try to keep her alleged abuser away.
That decision — and the state statute behind it — are now being challenged in the state’s Court of Appeals by the American Civil Liberties Union, with the support of the state’s attorney general.
It’s unclear how many people would be affected if the court rules in favor of M.E., who is identified in court documents only by her initials. But social workers and legal experts say that a favorable ruling would encourage people who are being abused to seek help.
“There are huge barriers for people coming forward, generally,” said Todd Brower, a law professor who trains judges and court personnel about LGBT issues through the Williams Institute at UCLA’s law school.
The situation is particularly acute in North Carolina, he said, because of the state’s historic antipathy to queer people. Just last month, the state agreed to stop banning people from using the public bathrooms that match their gender identities; in February, state legislators introduced a bill that would redefine same-sex unions as “parody marriages.”
Under current law, if people in North Carolina are in abusive relationships — so long as their partners are “of the opposite sex” — a judge can issue a 50B protective order. It allows a judge to take away guns from accused abusers or order them to attend violence counseling. It also opens up opportunities for the victim to get relocation services. If an order is violated, police can arrest the offender.
Same-sex couples who live together are also covered by 50B orders.
But for those who don’t share a home, the only option is a 50C, a no-contact order that doesn’t carry the same legal repercussions or safety measures as a 50B order.
No central database tracks or maintains records on the sexual orientation of those who request protective orders, so it’s unclear how many people fail to get a 50B and opt for a lower level of protection instead. A handful of studies question the efficacy of protective orders, which critics say are not always enforced by police officers.
But civil rights lawyers generally agree that while they may not be a silver bullet to stop violence, protective orders give judges more power to help the abused. “Though protective orders alone cannot guarantee the safety of a victim, they are much more than ‘just a piece of paper’,” said Sherry Everett, legal policy analyst for the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence. When there’s a protective order, she said, even a text message can result in a misdemeanor charge against the offender.
50B orders also give victims the opportunity to get court-offered services, such as relocation or trauma therapies, said Amily McCool, the lead attorney in the case of M.E. (Her client declined to comment.)
