FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 9th, 2026
TRENTON, NJ — The New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault (NJCASA) is responding to recent reporting surrounding sexual assault allegations at Cornell University that has brought attention to what has been described as a “voluntary intoxication loophole” in some states’ sexual assault laws. While this reporting raises important questions about how laws protect survivors, NJCASA is concerned that including New Jersey among states with this loophole presents an incomplete and misleading picture of the protections available to survivors in our state.
To be clear: In New Jersey, voluntarily consuming alcohol or other substances does not mean someone has consented to sexual activity and does not prevent a sexual assault from being investigated or prosecuted.
New Jersey law requires affirmative, freely given permission for sexual activity. This standard applies regardless of whether a person has consumed alcohol or other substances voluntarily. However, the recent reporting cited above has focused on a specific provision of New Jersey’s sexual assault law that defines when a person is considered “mentally incapacitated.” That definition includes language about intoxicating substances administered without someone’s knowledge or consent. Yet, this is only one part of New Jersey’s sexual assault law, and it does not represent the full range of circumstances under which sexual assault may be prosecuted.
In 2020, New Jersey amended its sexual assault statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2, to incorporate the affirmative-consent standard established by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Under this standard, sexual activity without affirmative and freely given permission may constitute sexual assault.
Furthermore, another provision of New Jersey law, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-10(c)(2), addresses situations in which a person is unable to make reasonable judgments because of intoxication. Importantly, this provision does not require that someone be drugged or intoxicated against their will. Voluntarily consuming alcohol or other substances does not automatically mean a person can legally consent to sexual activity in every circumstance.
NJCASA recognizes the importance of national conversations about gaps in sexual assault laws, and it fully supports efforts to ensure that survivors are protected, regardless of how they became intoxicated. However, the distinction between a single statutory definition and the full scope of a state’s sexual assault laws is critically important, and misleading information can obfuscate the facts more than shed light on important issues like this.
A survivor who reads that New Jersey has a loophole excluding people who voluntarily became intoxicated may mistakenly believe they have no legal protections or options for seeking justice, which is simply not true. That misunderstanding could discourage survivors from reporting sexual assault, reaching out for support, or even learning more about their rights. While clarifying existing statutory language is an important part of strengthening protections for survivors and one that NJCASA is committed to pursuing, it is equally important that public discourse accurately reflect the full law and how it serves survivors.
NJCASA has communicated these concerns directly to the Associated Press following its reporting on the Cornell University case. The power of the press to elevate survivors’ experiences and be a catalyst for meaningful change cannot be overstated, and we welcome the dialog. However, we have an obligation to work together to review statutory language and consider all relevant provisions of state law to ensure accuracy, promote advocacy, and provide survivors the information they need and deserve.
