In the discussion of the Kyrsten Sinema alienation of affections case, several commenters took roughly the following view: Spouses have promised fidelity to each other, and if they break those promises, they are at fault towards the other spouse. But one spouse's lover hasn't made any promises to the other spouse. The lover therefore can't be said to be at fault.
I don't think that view is right, and I don't think it fits the norm for how our legal system treats analogous scenarios. I think that on balance the abolition of the alienation of affections tort (which has happened in 45 states) is a good idea. But not for the reason that "the lover isn't at fault, only the spouses are."
Rather, alienation of affections is analogous to complicity liability. If Alan commits an intentional wrong against Betty, either a crime or a tort, and Cathy encourages Alan to do that, Cathy is generally liable. The term sometimes used for this is "solicitation," though sometimes it's seen as a form of aiding and abetting.
