18 U.S.C. § 2262

Interstate violation of protection order

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Offenses.—(1)Travel or conduct of offender.—A person who travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters or leaves Indian country or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, with the intent to engage in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that prohibits or provides protection against violence, threats, or harassment against, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to, another person or the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person, or that would violate such a portion of a protection order in the jurisdiction in which the order was issued, and subsequently engages in such conduct, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).(2)Causing travel of victim.—A person who causes another person to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or to enter or leave Indian country by force, coercion, duress, or fraud, and in the course of, as a result of, or to facilitate such conduct or travel engages in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that prohibits or provides protection against violence, threats, or harassment against, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to, another person or the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person, or that would violate such a portion of a protection order in the jurisdiction in which the order was issued, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).(b)Penalties.—A person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned—(1) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results;(2) for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life threatening bodily injury to the victim results;(3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim results or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense;(4) as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the offense would constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to whether the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and(5) for not more than 5 years, in any other case, including any case in which the offense is committed against a pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse,or both fined and imprisoned.(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, § 40221(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1927; amended Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, § 1069(b)(2), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2656; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 605(d), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3509; Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title I, § 1107(c), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1498; Pub. L. 109–162, title I, § 117(b), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2989; Pub. L. 113–4, title I, § 107(c), Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 78; Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, § 12502(a)(2), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4982.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 115–334, § 12502(a)(2)(A)(i), inserted “or the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person” after “another person”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 115–334, § 12502(a)(2)(A)(ii), inserted “or the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person” after “proximity to, another person”.

Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 115–334, § 12502(a)(2)(B), inserted “including any case in which the offense is committed against a pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse,” after “in any other case,”.

2013—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 113–4, which directed amendment of subsec. (a)(2) by inserting “is present” after “Indian country or”, was executed by making the insertion in subsec. (a)(1) to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

2006—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 109–162 inserted “or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” after “Indian country”.

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–386 added subsec. (a) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (a). Text read as follows:

“(1) Crossing a state line.—A person who travels across a State line or enters or leaves Indian country with the intent to engage in conduct that—

“(A)(i) violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued; or

“(ii) would violate this subparagraph if the conduct occurred in the jurisdiction in which the order was issued; and

“(B) subsequently engages in such conduct,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

“(2) Causing the crossing of a state line.—A person who causes a spouse or intimate partner to cross a State line or to enter or leave Indian country by force, coercion, duress, or fraud, and, in the course or as a result of that conduct, intentionally commits an act that injures the person’s spouse or intimate partner in violation of a valid protection order issued by a State shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).”

1996—Subsec. (a)(1)(A)(ii). Pub. L. 104–294 substituted “violate this subparagraph” for “violate subparagraph (A)”.

Subsec. (b)(1) to (3). Pub. L. 104–201 substituted “victim” for “offender’s spouse or intimate partner”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2013 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 113–4 not effective until the beginning of the fiscal year following Mar. 7, 2013, see section 4 of Pub. L. 113–4, set out as a note under section 2261 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 68 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999). · cites it 4× “, 18 U. S. C. § 2262 (b)(2) (interstate violation of a protection order); § 248(b)(2) (free access to clinic entrances; bodily injury), it has unmistakably identified serious bodily injury as an offense element in any number of statutes, see, e.”

Amendments to the Florida Fam. Law Rules of Procedure & Fam. Law Forms, 810 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 8× “18 U.S.C. § 2262 . *38 ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 1.”

United States v. Wright, 965 F. Supp. 1307 (D. Neb. 1997). · cites it 30× “1) against him because 18 U.S.C. § 2262 (a)(1) is unconstitutional and, therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in a prosecution based on an unconstitutional statute.”

United States v. Robinson, 433 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “Anthony Robinson pled guilty to a charge under the Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2262 , for the interstate violation of a protective order.”

United States v. Cline, 986 F.3d 873 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 7× “See 18 U.S.C. § 2262 (a)(1). Cline unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment.”

Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 2× “, Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2262 , 2265 (1994 & Supp.1999); Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 18 U.”

United States v. Nedd, 262 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “§ 875 (c) and pleading guilty to one count of interstate violation of a restraining order in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2262 (a)(1). He argues that the district court erred in its application of the grouping rules of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, in particular, U.”

United States v. Vasquez, 611 F.3d 325 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “It would only have to show that the defendant had at some time traveled across state lines, regardless of his purpose, and that at some time later he violated a protective order.”

Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185 (2025). “See 18 U. S. C. §2262 (a). And suppose that the trial evidence showed the defendant engaged in conduct that caused his former wife very severe emotional distress.”

United States v. Stephan Paul Doll Von Foelkel, 136 F.3d 339 (2d Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “PER CURIAM: Stephan Paul Doll Von Foelkel appeals his conviction, following a jury trial before Judge Pooler of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, for interstate violation of a protection order in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2262 (a)(1). Von…”

United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011). “See 18 U.S.C. § 2262 . And, as the district court instructed the jury, a person is guilty of stalking under New York law where he "engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and knows or reasonably should know that such conduct .”

United States v. Dion, 37 F.4th 31 (1st Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “Defendant-appellant Nelson Jean Dion challenges his conviction for interstate violation of a protection order under 18 U.S.C. § 2262 (a)(1) — an offense created by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), Pub.”

Show all 68 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.