The story of Lashanda Salinas-Hicks illustrates a broader reality: people living with HIV can still be consigned to the criminal justice system for decades. Salinas-Hicks was charged after an ex-partner alleged non-disclosure in 2006 and spent nearly 17 years subject to the state’s sex offender registry, restricted from parks and required to report frequently to law enforcement. Her experience forced her into isolation from everyday life and family, even though she has remained undetectable. Throughout this article, undetectable is used to describe a viral load so low that transmission through sexual contact is effectively impossible when sustained by treatment.
These individual stories sit alongside national data: the Williams Institute estimates more than 4,400 Americans have been listed on registries specifically because of their HIV status. As of 2026, 32 states still carry criminal penalties tied to HIV disclosure, and five states—Louisiana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Ohio and Washington—may require registry listing after a conviction under HIV-specific statutes. Advances in prevention such as pre-exposure prophylaxis and widespread access to antiretroviral therapy contrast sharply with laws that were drafted during the earliest years of the epidemic.
Origins of the laws and how they function today
The United States pioneered legal responses to HIV during the late 1980s, with many states adopting measures in 1987 that treated infection as a criminal matter. Those statutes were grounded in fears that HIV was invariably fatal, an assumption overturned by treatment advances. Yet many provisions persist: some states retain civil commitment options allowing involuntary confinement after a sentence, and others criminalize non-sexual contacts like spitting or bleeding. In practice, enforcement often expands definitions of conduct and can treat simple communication as criminal. For clarity, civil commitment here refers to the legal process by which a person may be confined to a health or mental facility without their consent.
Who is targeted and why enforcement is unequal
Enforcement patterns reveal stark disparities. Legal advocates and data show that HIV criminalization disproportionately affects Black people and LGBTQ communities, particularly trans and queer people of color who face higher levels of policing and surveillance. Organizations like Lambda Legal and public interest attorneys note that these laws are frequently invoked in the context of abusive relationships, where allegations become a tool for control. The combined effect is a system that applies extra layers of punishment—both legal and social—on already marginalized groups, deepening stigma and reducing trust in public institutions.
Legal change, victories and remaining gaps
Recent reforms and their limits
There have been legislative wins: Tennessee removed the registry requirement in 2026, freeing 154 people from that label, and states such as Maryland and North Dakota moved to repeal HIV-specific criminal statutes in 2026. Those reforms were the result of sustained advocacy and public testimony from people who lived on registries. Still, many states maintain felony exposure crimes or other penalties; in Tennessee, for example, the registry provision was overturned but the underlying felony for non-disclosure remained. Thus reforms often leave significant legal obstacles in place even after a registry ban.
Public health implications of criminal statutes
Criminalization can undermine prevention goals. Because prosecution typically requires knowledge of status, some people avoid testing to sidestep potential legal exposure—an effect summed up in advocacy circles as “take the test, risk arrest.” The country has seen dramatic changes in incidence since the epidemic’s peak: annual diagnoses fell from a mid-1980s peak to roughly 32,000 in 2026, and in 2026 an estimated 57% of people living with HIV in the U.S. were undetectable. Yet punitive laws can counteract those gains by discouraging engagement with care and by perpetuating stigma that drives people away from prevention services.
Advocates press for statutes that reflect contemporary science: reducing or eliminating criminal penalties when a person is virally suppressed, clarifying that consensual sex and effective prevention do not constitute criminal conduct, and ending policies that allow non-sexual acts to trigger prosecution. Salinas-Hicks, who lobbied at the state capitol starting in 2026 and participated in public demonstrations, captures the argument succinctly: “Let’s fix the laws to match the science.” For many advocates, the goal is not impunity but careful laws that protect public health, respect civil rights and avoid weaponization against vulnerable people.
Reform remains uneven and contested across statehouses. While a growing number of jurisdictions have modernized statutes, others consider measures to increase penalties—legislative activity in January 2026 and proposals in several states show that momentum can swing both ways. The path forward will require continued advocacy, clear communication of scientific evidence, and policies centered on health rather than punishment. Aligning the law with modern treatment and prevention tools is essential to reduce harm, promote testing and support people living with HIV in living full lives without the added burden of punitive registration.