Can legislative actions protect marginalized communities where the criminal justice system has failed them? I examine whether the prohibition of the LGBTQ+ "panic" defense, a legal strategy that seeks to blame the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity for the defendant's violent behavior, affects the prevalence of hate crimes. Drawing on the concept of social norms, I argue that legislative measures against this practice decrease the number of hate crimes in two ways. First, by informing individuals about prevailing behavioral rules. Second, by conveying a univocal negative image of norm-breakers. To identify the causal effect of banning this practice, I leverage the gradual roll-out of LGBTQ+ "panic" defense bans across the United States and implement a difference-in-differences design. The results show that the introduction of these bills leads to significantly lower levels of anti-LGBTQ+ hate crime rates. Consistent with the theoretical argument, this effect gradually increases with length of exposure. Besides contributing to the literature on minority politics, policy feedback and contextual drivers of hate crime, insights gained from this work are of assistance to policy makers and minority rights advocates.