Domestic violence is a major issue in the United States. In abusive relationships, an abuser seeks to control the victim through various forms of abuse, such as physical, psychological, sexual, and/or financial abuse. Even after a domestic violence survivor is able to escape an abusive relationship, the court system has unfortunately become yet another tool that an abuser utilizes to maintain control of and access to the survivor long after their relationship has ended. Through abusive litigation, an abuser instigates court proceedings with the real purpose of harassing, intimidating, and maintaining control over the survivor. These often meritless proceedings force survivors to continually face their abusers in court, spend thousands of dollars in court fees, and ultimately lead to further financial and emotional burdens on survivors. Although courts have existing means of addressing abusive litigation, such as state Rule 11 sanctions and the court’s inherent authority, these remedies do not specifically address issues unique to abusive litigation where there has been a history of domestic violence, such as the abuser’s primary motivation to maintain control over the victim, or actively prevent an abuser from filing further actions for this abusive purpose. In 2018, Tennessee became the first state to address this issue through enacting a law specifically addressing abusive litigation in the family law context that allows courts to impose prefiling restrictions on abusers who are found to be misusing the court system to harass their victims. This Article analyzes the issue of abusive litigation in the family law context by addressing prior remedies to abusive litigation and why these remedies are not enough to curb abusive litigation in the family law context. It also dissects Tennessee’s law on abusive civil actions, specifically focusing on the sanctions imposed under this law. The most noteworthy sanction is the prefiling restrictions, which prevents an abuser found by the court to be an abusive civil action plaintiff using court proceedings to harass or maliciously injure the victim from filing further actions for four to six years absent the court’s permission. Further, this article argues that Tennessee’s law is a step in the right direction to curb abusive litigation because it is narrowly focused to protect a uniquely vulnerable group, imposes real consequences on abusive litigants, has the same judge oversee any lawsuit the abuser attempts to file during the prefiling restrictions period, and specifies the survivor is not required to respond to an abuser’s attempted motion during the prefiling restrictions period until the sanctioning judge reviews it for merit. Finally, this Article proposes that each state should adopt a law similar to Tennessee’s law on abusive civil actions that specifically addresses abusive litigation in the family law context in order to curb this type of abusive litigation. In order to close a potential loophole in this law for future implementation that could allow an abuser to use it against a survivor, this law may need to include a provision stipulating that this law does not apply to good faith inquiries about a child’s welfare. Once a state passes a specific law addressing abusive litigation in the family law context, it needs to implement abusive litigation into judicial training on domestic violence, especially since this law allows a court on its own authority to declare an abuser to be an abusive civil action plaintiff.