U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 110A— DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STALKING

18 U.S.C. § 2265

Full faith and credit given to protection orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Full Faith and Credit.—Any protection order issued that is consistent with subsection (b) of this section by the court of one State, Indian tribe, or territory (the issuing State, Indian tribe, or territory) shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State, Indian tribe, or territory (the enforcing State, Indian tribe, or territory) and enforced by the court and law enforcement personnel of the other State, Indian tribal government or Territory 11 So in original. Probably should not be capitalized. as if it were the order of the enforcing State or tribe.(b)Protection Order.—A protection order issued by a State, tribal, or territorial court is consistent with this subsection if—(1) such court has jurisdiction over the parties and matter under the law of such State, Indian tribe, or territory; and(2) reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to protect that person’s right to due process. In the case of ex parte orders, notice and opportunity to be heard must be provided within the time required by State, tribal, or territorial law, and in any event within a reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to protect the respondent’s due process rights.(c)Cross or Counter Petition.—A protection order issued by a State, tribal, or territorial court against one who has petitioned, filed a complaint, or otherwise filed a written pleading for protection against abuse by a spouse or intimate partner is not entitled to full faith and credit if—(1) no cross or counter petition, complaint, or other written pleading was filed seeking such a protection order; or(2) a cross or counter petition has been filed and the court did not make specific findings that each party was entitled to such an order.(d)Notification and Registration.—(1)Notification.—A State, Indian tribe, or territory according full faith and credit to an order by a court of another State, Indian tribe, or territory shall not notify or require notification of the party against whom a protection order has been issued that the protection order has been registered or filed in that enforcing State, tribal, or territorial jurisdiction unless requested to do so by the party protected under such order.(2)No prior registration or filing as prerequisite for enforcement.—Any protection order that is otherwise consistent with this section shall be accorded full faith and credit, notwithstanding failure to comply with any requirement that the order be registered or filed in the enforcing State, tribal, or territorial jurisdiction.(3)Limits on internet publication of registration information.—A State, Indian tribe, or territory shall not make available publicly on the Internet any information regarding the registration, filing of a petition for, or issuance of a protection order, restraining order, or injunction in either the issuing or enforcing State, tribal or territorial jurisdiction, if such publication would be likely to publicly reveal the identity or location of the party protected under such order. A State, Indian tribe, or territory may share court-generated and law enforcement-generated information contained in secure, governmental registries for protection order enforcement purposes. The prohibition under this paragraph applies to all protection orders for the protection of a person residing within a State, territorial, or Tribal jurisdiction, whether or not the protection order was issued by that State, territory, or Tribe.(e)Tribal Court Jurisdiction.—For purposes of this section, a court of an Indian tribe shall have full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders involving any person, including the authority to enforce any orders through civil contempt proceedings, to exclude violators from Indian land, and to use other appropriate mechanisms, in matters arising anywhere in the Indian country of the Indian tribe (as defined in section 1151) or otherwise within the authority of the Indian tribe.(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, § 40221(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1930; amended Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title I, § 1101(b)(4), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1493; Pub. L. 109–162, title I, § 106(a)–(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2981, 2982; Pub. L. 109–271, § 2(n), Aug. 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 754; Pub. L. 113–4, title IX, § 905, Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 124; Pub. L. 117–103, div. W, title I, § 106, Mar. 15, 2022, 136 Stat. 851.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 117–103 struck out “restraining order or injunction,” after “a protection order,” and inserted at end “The prohibition under this paragraph applies to all protection orders for the protection of a person residing within a State, territorial, or Tribal jurisdiction, whether or not the protection order was issued by that State, territory, or Tribe.”

2013—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 113–4 added subsec. (e) and struck out former subsec. (e). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “For purposes of this section, a tribal court shall have full civil jurisdiction to enforce protection orders, including authority to enforce any orders through civil contempt proceedings, exclusion of violators from Indian lands, and other appropriate mechanisms, in matters arising within the authority of the tribe.”

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–162, § 106(a)(1), (b), substituted “, Indian tribe, or territory” for “or Indian tribe” wherever appearing and “and enforced by the court and law enforcement personnel of the other State, Indian tribal government or Territory as if it were” for “and enforced as if it were”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–162, § 106(a)(2), substituted “State, tribal, or territorial” for “State or tribal” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 109–162, § 106(a)(1), substituted “, Indian tribe, or territory” for “or Indian tribe”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 109–162, § 106(a)(2), substituted “State, tribal, or territorial” for “State or tribal”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 109–162, § 106(a)(2), substituted “State, tribal, or territorial” for “State or tribal” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 109–162, § 106(a), substituted “, Indian tribe, or territory” for “or Indian tribe” in two places and “State, tribal, or territorial” for “State or tribal”.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 109–162, § 106(a)(2), substituted “State, tribal, or territorial” for “State or tribal”.

Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 109–271, which directed amendment of section 106(c) of Pub. L. 109–162 by substituting “the registration, filing of a petition for, or issuance of a protection order, restraining order or injunction” for “the registration or filing of a protection order”, was executed by making the substitution in par. (3), which was added by section 106(c) of Pub. L. 109–162, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Pub. L. 109–162, § 106(c), added par. (3).

2000—Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 106–386 added subsecs. (d) and (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesSpecial Rule for the State of Alaska

Pub. L. 113–4, title IX, § 910, Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 126, which provided that, in the State of Alaska, the amendments made by sections 904 and 905 of Pub. L. 113–4, which related to tribal jurisdiction over crimes of domestic violence and over issuance of protection orders, applied only to the Indian country of the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–275, Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2988.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 301 cases (207 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Amendments to the Florida Fam. Law Rules of Procedure & Fam. Law Forms, 810 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amendments to the Florida Fam. Law Rules of Procedure & Fam. Law Forms, 810 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 12× “It is intended that this protection order meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2265 and therefore intended that it be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another state or Indian tribe and enforced as if it were the order of the enforcing state or of the Indian tribe.”
Joy Spurr v. Melissa Lopez Pope, 936 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 9× “But our review involves no probing of the facts, just a pure question of law: Does a tribal court have jurisdiction under federal law to issue a civil personal protection order against a non-Indian and non-tribal member in matters arising in the Indian country of the Indian…”
Milne v. Hudson, 2022 OK 84 (Okla. 2022). · cites it 8× “18 U.S.C. § 2265 (e). However, the plain language of this statute does not confer exclusive civil jurisdiction.”
United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “Specifically, Coc-cia contends that 18 U.S.C. § 2265 is overly broad and conflicts with Massachusetts’ requirement that out-of-state restraining orders be registered, and thereby makes its application to him fundamentally unfair.”
United States v. Thompson, 921 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “§ 2266 (5) [ 5 ] and consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (b)." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt.”
State v. Esquivel, 132 P.3d 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “¶ 14 Full faith and credit is also extended specifically to tribal protection orders in 18 U.S.C. § 2265 . This provision is part of the Violence Against Women Act which provides for nation wide enforcement of protection orders in state and tribal courts.”
Steckler v. Steckler, 921 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). · cites it 4× “The former wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to afford North Dakota's domestic violence protective order against the former husband full faith and credit under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2265 (2005). The former wife argues that the federal full faith and credit statute…”
State v. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 2× “" The order advised Colvin that the Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (2000), made the order enforceable in all 50 states, Washington D.”
Becker v. Johnson, 937 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). · cites it 7× “As part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, protection orders entered by one state or Indian tribe complying with the requirements *1132 of 18 U.S.C. § 2265 [4] "shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State or Indian tribe .”
Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 2× “The court noted that its decision did not leave the wife without an enforceable remedy in Florida; if she got an order in Maryland that was compliant with the federal Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (2005), that order would be enforceable in Florida.”
Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Fam. Law Forms-Sexual Violence Forms, 871 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 10× “It is intended that this protection order meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2265 and therefore intended that it be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another state or Indian tribe and enforced as if it were the order of the enforcing state or of the Indian tribe.”
Commonwealth v. Shangkuan, 943 N.E.2d 466 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Whether these respective authorities are sufficient of their own force to require compliance by a foreign police officer is a question we need not answer because the full faith and credit provision of the Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (2006), requires that a…”
Show all 301 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 2265(a) — 1 case
Milne v. Hudson, 2022 OK 84 (Okla. 2022). “18 U.S.C. § 2265 (e). However, the plain language of this statute does not confer exclusive civil jurisdiction.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2265(e) — 1 case
Milne v. Hudson, 2022 OK 84 (Okla. 2022). “18 U.S.C. § 2265 (e). However, the plain language of this statute does not confer exclusive civil jurisdiction.”
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.