A Legal Loophole That Saved the Cornell 7…the First Time
  September 24, 2026 Greetings, Meteor readers, It’s only Tuesday, and this has already been a heavy week, especially as we learn more about the lawsuit being brought against Cornell University and the seven fraternity members accused of disgusting crimes. In today’s newsletter, we’re uncovering the little-known legal apparatus that allows cases like these to escape investigation for so long. Plus, the Trump administration adds insult to injury, and a young icon is born. We recognize that this may be a difficult read for some, so if today’s newsletter is not for you, please know that we are with you in spirit, in grief, and in rage. Help is available if you need it. With extra love, Shannon Melero  WHAT’S GOING ONVoluntary intoxication exclusion: By now, the whole world has learned that earlier this month, a former Cornell University student, known only as Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit against the university and seven fraternity members, alleging that the men gang-raped her in 2024 and that the school failed to hold them accountable. (Their fraternity, Chi Phi, was banned from campus, but no criminal charges were brought against the accused.) On Sunday night, Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said his office would revisit the case to see whether criminal charges were appropriate, adding that local police initially hadn’t conducted a thorough investigation and instead relied on information gathered by campus police—who never fully engaged local law enforcement. When the news broke that Van Houten’s office was re-opening an investigation, my phone buzzed off the table. For the last few months I have been investigating New York State’s voluntary intoxication exclusion loophole, a failure of the current penal code that excludes someone who was willingly intoxicated from being able to pursue rape charges against their assailant. Jane Doe was allegedly drunk of her own volition the night of her attack so, to put it bluntly: The New York State Penal Code says—for now—a crime did not take place at Cornell University that night. In other words, how someone became intoxicated is the legal difference between a morally reprehensible act and a crime. If someone voluntarily downs enough cocktails, advocate Will Rivera explained to The Meteor last year, their assault “does not technically constitute a crime.” (This changes if a victim presents with bruises or other physical evidence of battery.)  THE CORNELL CAMPUS IN ITHACA, NEW YORK (VIA GETTY IMAGES) In fact, Van Houten raised this exact distinction when he addressed why criminal charges were never brought in the Cornell case: “[Jane Doe] never says [in her original interview] that she was drugged without her knowledge,” he said. “She admits to taking drugs and alcohol voluntarily and with knowledge.” Doe’s lawyer says that campus police never followed up after the initial statement and did not thoroughly investigate the complaint despite evidence provided, and now we know one likely reason why. “There’s an environment where the police are like, Oh, this is just a waste of our time,” explains Elizabeth da Trinidade-Asher, a lawyer and co-chair of Justice Without Exclusion Coalition. “Because these cases are messy, prosecutors don’t take them. It’s technically not a crime in the books.” Think all this sounds unjust? It is, and for the last eight years, advocates in New York State have been working on a bill that would close this loophole. “The legislature has to…say this is a crime, period, end of sentence,” says Trinidade-Asher, who has been lobbying for this bill for the last five years. “We recognize in a court of law that if you walk into a car dealership, visibly intoxicated, and you sign for a car, that signature is not valid,” adds Minister Peace, co-chair of Community for a Cause. Yet “we stop short in our law in New York when it comes to sexual assault if you got yourself intoxicated voluntarily.” The bill has passed the state senate five times and, this spring, obtained a record number of bipartisan co-sponsors, but Speaker of the New York State Assembly Carl Heastie, a Democrat, has not brought it to a vote. And the dismissive environment Trinidade-Asher describes is not limited to the police departments, nor to Cornell—it reaches all the way to the corridors of Albany, where this bill has been referred to as the “ruining-drunk-sex bill” by assembly members, Trinidade-Asher and Peace say.  SUMMER WILLIS, WHO HELPED CLOSE THE INTOXICATION LOOPHOLE IN HER HOME STATE OF TEXAS, JOINED ADVOCATES IN NEW YORK LAST YEAR TO BRING ATTENTION TO THE BILL. SHE HAS CONTINUED HER EFFORTS THIS YEAR. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) In May of this year, she and Peace were in Albany to lobby for the bill when Peace heard Assemblymember Patrick Burke of Buffalo describe the bill with that language. “He said it in a very jovial manner,” says Peace. “He was just like, ‘Oh, as me and my colleagues call this, the ‘ruining-drunk-sex bill.’ That took me aback.” Reached for comment, Burke tells The Meteor that he is a supporter of the bill, and plans to vote “yes” if it’s brought to the floor. He denies referring to it in a disrespectful manner, and a representative from his office clarified in a statement that Burke was using a colloquial term for the bill. “‘Drunk sex bill’ is something that was sort of a general reference to it,” Burke said on a call. “This is not something people in Albany are being callous about.” Callous? Maybe not. Infuriatingly slow? Let’s review: This bill has been in the works for nearly a decade. It has the support of survivors, legislators, and advocacy groups. Last year, 92 assembly members signed on as co-sponsors to bring the bill to a floor vote. Yet it has never been brought to a vote and it is still reportedly being called a “drunk sex bill.” And meanwhile, Jane Doe is left with limited legal recourse. New York state senator Nathalia Fernandez, one of the co-sponsors of the bill, released a statement yesterday saying that voluntary intoxication exclusion must be a priority for the next legislative session. She also announced a rally for Thursday at the Bronx County Courthouse to shed light on this loophole. So if you’re angry, hold your anger; tend to it like a houseplant. Bring it with you on Thursday if you’re local, and carry it into 2027 when this bill will have another opportunity to be brought to the floor. It could, after all, have given Jane Doe a chance to pursue justice. And it would have acknowledged: Rape is not “drunk sex.” It’s rape. The Meteor will continue to monitor the progress of this bill and offer further reporting on what’s been holding it up all of these years. Stay with us. AND:
 FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
