Military Protective Orders and Restraining Orders

A service member accused of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault can face two different protective orders. A military protective order (MPO) is a commander’s order to that service member; a civilian protective order (CPO), also called a restraining order, is a court order. They differ in who must obey them, who enforces them, how long they last, and in their firearms consequences: a qualifying court order can trigger a federal ban on possessing any firearm or ammunition, while an MPO by itself does not.

The military protective order: a commander’s order

The Army’s regulation describes the MPO as “a written lawful order issued by a commander that orders a Soldier to avoid contact with those persons identified in the order”, recorded on DD Form 2873 and used to create a “cooling-off” period after domestic violence and sexual assault incidents, including incidents involving children (32 C.F.R. § 635.19(a)). No judge, petition, or hearing is involved. The same regulation says the commander should give a written copy within 24 hours to the protected person and to installation law enforcement.

Three features follow from its nature as an order:

It binds only the service member. The protected person is not under the order and does not violate it by making contact.
It is enforced through the UCMJ. Breaking the order is disobedience, charged under Article 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer) or Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), depending on who issued it and the facts. The government proves the order, the accused’s knowledge of it, and the violation; it does not have to prove the allegation that led to the order.
Its enforcement runs through the command. Because no court issued it, the federal provisions that give civilian orders force on installations and across state lines (10 U.S.C. § 1561a; 18 U.S.C. § 2265, below) do not apply to it; the commander’s notice to civilian authorities (§ 1567a) informs them of the order. The duty to obey follows the service member off the installation: a text message sent from anywhere can still be disobedience.

Duration. By statute, an MPO “shall remain in effect until such time as the military commander terminates the order or issues a replacement order” (10 U.S.C. § 1567). There is no fixed end date and no hearing to contest it; relief is requested from the commander.

Notice to civilian authorities. The service member’s unit commander must notify the appropriate civilian authorities of the order and the individuals involved within seven days of issuance, and must also report any change or termination (10 U.S.C. § 1567a(a), (c)). If the member transfers, the losing commander must notify the gaining commander by the date of transfer, and the gaining commander must notify civilian authorities within seven days of that notice (§ 1567a(b)).

When the member leaves the service. An MPO is a military order. Once the person is no longer subject to the UCMJ, no command remains to enforce it, which is one reason a protected person may seek a court order as well.

The civilian protective order: a court order

A CPO is issued by a state, tribal, or territorial court under its own law. Federal law gives it reach in two directions:

On military installations. “A civilian order of protection shall have the same force and effect on a military installation as such order has within the jurisdiction of the court that issued such order” (10 U.S.C. § 1561a(a)).
Across state lines. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2265, a protection order from one state, tribe, or territory must be given full faith and credit elsewhere if the issuing court had jurisdiction and the person restrained received “reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard”; for ex parte orders, notice and a hearing must follow within the time state law requires. An order that otherwise qualifies gets full faith and credit “notwithstanding failure to comply with any requirement that the order be registered or filed in the enforcing State” (§ 2265(d)(2)).

Firearms: where the two orders differ most

A court order can make possession of any firearm or ammunition a federal crime. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), it is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm or ammunition in or affecting commerce while subject to a court order that:

“was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate”;
restrains the person “from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person,” or from conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury; and
either “includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child” or “by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” against that partner or child.

When a CPO meets those three conditions, the prohibition comes from the order itself; no criminal conviction is needed. Two kinds of orders fall outside it. A temporary ex parte order issued before any hearing does not meet the first condition. An MPO is not a court order at all. A commander can still restrict a service member’s access to firearms through a lawful order, but that restriction is enforced as a military order, not through § 922(g)(8).

There is also a duty-weapon point. The federal official-use exemption in 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) takes firearms issued for government use outside the chapter’s provisions, but it expressly does not reach § 922(g)(9), the ban for persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. A qualifying protective order and a domestic violence conviction therefore have different effects on a service member’s duty weapon. The firearms effects of a conviction are covered in collateral consequences of a court-martial conviction, and the offense itself in domestic violence prosecution under the UCMJ.

The two orders side by side

Feature	Military protective order	Civilian protective order
Issued by	A commander	A state, tribal, or territorial court
Hearing	None	Notice and opportunity to be heard (before or after an ex parte order)
Who must obey	The service member it names	The person it restrains
Violation	Article 90 or 92 disobedience	State criminal or contempt process
Enforced by	Chain of command	Civilian police; on base under 10 U.S.C. 1561a
Duration	Until the commander ends or replaces it (10 U.S.C. 1567)	The order's own terms
Federal firearms ban (922(g)(8))	No	Yes, if issued after a hearing and meeting the order-content conditions

When both orders apply

A service member under both orders must obey each. If the MPO bars all contact while the court order allows supervised child exchanges, the stricter MPO term governs the service member’s conduct, because violating it is an offense regardless of what the court order allows. The protected person is bound by neither.

One spouse, two orders (hypothetical)

A commander issues an MPO barring a soldier from contacting a spouse after a reported assault, and the spouse later obtains a state restraining order after a hearing the soldier attended, which forbids the use of force against the spouse.

A text message from the barracks violates the MPO: chargeable under Article 90 or 92 without proof of the assault.
Showing up at the spouse’s off-post apartment violates the state order: local police can arrest under state law.
From the date of that order, the soldier’s possession of a personally owned firearm is a federal crime under § 922(g)(8), whether or not any charge is ever brought for the assault.
If the soldier is later separated, the MPO no longer has a command behind it; the state order continues on its own terms and is enforceable in other states under § 2265.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a service member be punished if the protected person started the contact?
Yes. The MPO is directed at the service member, not the protected person. Responding to or engaging in contact the protected person started is still disobedience of the order.

Does the victim need a court order if the commander has already issued an MPO?
The choice belongs to the protected person, who can also draw on Special Victims’ Counsel and the victims’ rights the UCMJ provides. The MPO depends on the service member staying under military command and is enforced through the chain of command; a court order has force on base under § 1561a, follows the protected person across state lines, and can trigger the federal firearms ban.

Sources

This article is general information about military law, not legal advice for any individual case.