Also known as:restraining orders · TRO · temporary restraining order
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
1
protection order
A judicial command that bars a specified person from harassing, threatening, or contacting another individual. The order is granted when immediate danger of abuse exists and is commonly issued ex parte upon an affidavit showing irreparable injury would otherwise result.
2
Sense 1
1
protection order
A judicial command that bars a specified person from harassing, threatening, or contacting another individual. The order is granted when immediate danger of abuse exists and is commonly issued ex parte upon an affidavit showing irreparable injury would otherwise result.
See Our Sources· 1 primary source
Uniform Acts
Examples
Sense 2
2
temporary civil relief
An interlocutory directive issued by a court that prohibits a party from taking certain actions until a hearing can be held or final judgment entered. The order supplies extraordinary relief when prompt judicial action is required to preserve the status quo or enforce statutory rights.
An interlocutory directive issued by a court that prohibits a party from taking certain actions until a hearing can be held or final judgment entered. The order supplies extraordinary relief when prompt judicial action is required to preserve the status quo or enforce statutory rights.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
1
Enforcement of Domestic Violence Order
Roberto Reyes obtained a restraining order directing his estranged wife to stay away from their children. When she took the children anyway, he repeatedly notified the police. The officers declined to enforce the order, and the children were later killed. Reyes sued the town, claiming the officers' inaction violated his due process rights.
Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales545 U.S. 748 (2005)
Jessica Gonzales obtained a temporary restraining order against her estranged husband in May 1999 in connection with divorce proceedings in a Colorado state court. The order was served on the husband on June 4, 1999.
The state trial court modified the terms of the restraining order on June 4, 1999, and made it permanent. The modified order granted the husband limited visitation rights with their three daughters on alternate weekends, for two weeks during the summer, and upon reasonable notice for a mid-week dinner visit.
On the evening of June 22, 1999, the husband took the three daughters, ages 10, 9, and 7, from outside the family home without any advance arrangements for visitation that night. Gonzales contacted the Castle Rock Police Department around 7:30 p.m. She showed officers a copy of the restraining order and requested its enforcement and the immediate return of the children. The officers stated there was nothing they could do and advised her to call back if the children did not return by 10:00 p.m.
Gonzales made additional calls to the police throughout the night. She called at 8:30 p.m. after speaking with her husband who was at an amusement park in Denver. She called at 10:10 p.m., at midnight, and at 12:10 a.m. when she went to his apartment. Each time she was told to wait or that no immediate action would be taken. When she filed an incident report at the police station around 12:50 a.m., the officer took the report but made no effort to locate the children before going to dinner.
At approximately 3:20 a.m. on June 23, 1999, the husband arrived at the police station and opened fire with a semi-automatic handgun. Police shot back, killing him. Inside the cab of his pickup truck, they found the bodies of all three daughters, whom he had already murdered.
Gonzales subsequently filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Town of Castle Rock. She alleged that the police department's policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations deprived her of due process. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Tenth Circuit en banc reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
When may a court issue a restraining order without prior notice to the opposing party?
A court may issue the order ex parte only upon an affidavit or other evidence showing that irreparable injury will result to the moving party before the opposing party can respond. The moving party must demonstrate immediate danger that justifies bypassing notice.
Supporting sources
Does a restraining order create a property interest enforceable under the Due Process Clause?
A restraining order does not automatically create an enforceable entitlement to police protection. Whether enforcement is mandatory depends on the specific language of the statute or order creating the obligation.
Supporting sources
Examples5
Partnership Derivative Suit Injunction
Rebecca Ross, a limited partner in Riverside Healthcare, filed a derivative action alleging mismanagement by the general partner. The partnership responded by appointing a special litigation committee. The court granted the partnership's request for a temporary restraining order halting further discovery while the committee completed its investigation.
Prior Restraint on Publication
The government sought to stop the New York Times from printing classified documents. Rosa Ruiz, the newspaper's attorney, argued that any order preventing publication would violate the First Amendment. The court refused to issue the restraining order because the government failed to prove that publication would inevitably cause direct and immediate harm to national security.
New York Times Co. v. United States403 U.S. 713 (1971)
The United States brought suit against the New York Times Company and the Washington Post Company seeking to enjoin publication of material from a classified government study on the history of United States decision-making regarding Vietnam policy.
The newspapers had come into possession of the classified documents and had already begun publishing excerpts from the study in their respective newspapers before the government filed for injunctive relief. The District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in the New York Times case that the government had not satisfied the requirements for imposing a prior restraint.
In the parallel Washington Post litigation, the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both determined that the government had not met its burden. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the matters on an expedited schedule.
Stays had been entered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 23, 1971, and by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 1971.
The state sued the NAACP for failing to register as a foreign corporation and obtained an ex parte restraining order barring all further activities within the state. Roger Ramirez, the organization's local counsel, moved to dissolve the order on First Amendment grounds. The court later required production of membership lists, prompting a constitutional challenge to the restraint.
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson357 U.S. 449, 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1488 (1958)
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a nonprofit membership corporation organized under the laws of New York. Its first Alabama affiliates were chartered in 1918, and in 1951 the Association opened a regional office in Alabama employing two supervisory persons and one clerical worker. The Association has never complied with Alabama's foreign corporation qualification statute.
In 1956 the Attorney General of Alabama brought an equity suit in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County to enjoin the Association from further activities within the state and to oust it from Alabama. The bill alleged that the Association had opened a regional office, organized affiliates, recruited members, solicited contributions, given financial support and legal assistance to Negro students seeking admission to the state university, and supported a Negro boycott of Montgomery bus lines. On the day the complaint was filed the Circuit Court issued an ex parte order restraining the Association pendente lite from engaging in further activities within the state and from taking steps to qualify to do business.
The State moved for production of a large number of records including bank statements, leases, deeds, and records containing the names and addresses of all Alabama members and agents. Over the Association's objections the Circuit Court ordered production of a substantial part of the requested records including the membership lists and postponed the hearing on the restraining order. The Association answered the bill, admitted its Alabama activities substantially as alleged, and offered to qualify if the bar from qualification were lifted, but it did not produce the membership lists.
For its failure to comply the Association was adjudged in civil contempt and fined $10,000, with the fine subject to increase to $100,000 if compliance was not forthcoming within five days. After the five-day period the Association produced substantially all requested data except the membership lists, and the Circuit Court increased the fine to $100,000. The Alabama Supreme Court twice dismissed petitions for certiorari to review the final contempt judgment, the first time for insufficiency of the petition's allegations and the second time on procedural grounds.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the importance of the constitutional questions presented.
School Athletic Ruling Restraint
After the athletic association placed a high school team on probation, parents and wrestlers sought a restraining order in state court. Roland Rhodes, the coach, testified at the hearing that the association had denied due process. The court issued the order overturning the probation, allowing the team to compete in the state tournament.
Internet Spam Injunction Request
CompuServe received thousands of unsolicited commercial emails from Cyber Promotions. Rita Russell, CompuServe's in-house counsel, filed suit and requested a temporary restraining order to halt the transmissions. The court issued the order after finding that the volume of messages constituted a trespass to chattels that threatened the service's operations.
CompuServe v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.962 F. Supp. 1015, 1022 (S.D. Ohio 1997)
CompuServe Incorporated operates one of the major national commercial online computer services through a proprietary nationwide computer network that provides subscribers with access to its content and a link to the Internet for exchanging electronic mail. Defendants Cyber Promotions, Inc. and its president Sanford Wallace are in the business of sending unsolicited e-mail advertisements on behalf of themselves and their clients to hundreds of thousands of Internet users, many of whom are CompuServe subscribers.
Over the past several months, CompuServe received many complaints from subscribers threatening to discontinue their subscriptions unless the company prohibited electronic mass mailers from using its equipment. In or around October 1995, CompuServe employee Jon Schmidt specifically told Sanford Wallace that he was prohibited from using CompuServe's equipment to send junk e-mail messages. CompuServe later posted an online policy statement declaring that it does not permit its facilities to be used by unauthorized parties to process and store unsolicited e-mail.
Despite the notification, defendants sent an increasing volume of e-mail solicitations to CompuServe subscribers. CompuServe attempted to block the messages with software programs, but defendants modified their equipment and messages to circumvent the screening by falsifying the point-of-origin information in the headers, removing sender information, and configuring their servers to conceal their true domain name.
CompuServe submitted affidavits from software developer Michael Mangino on the burden to its equipment, customer service manager Patrick Hole on receiving approximately 9,970 e-mail complaints in November 1996, and others documenting the evasion tactics. On October 24, 1996, the court issued a temporary restraining order, and following a hearing on December 15, 1996, the court considered CompuServe's application for a preliminary injunction to extend the order and enjoin defendants from sending any unsolicited advertisements to CompuServe subscribers.
1 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
How long does a party have to respond to a temporary restraining order?
A response may be filed within twenty days after service of notice or at the time specified in the temporary restraining order itself. The order remains in effect until the court holds a hearing on a preliminary injunction or dissolves the restraint.
Supporting sources
403 U.S. 713 (1971)
…our judgments in the present cases may not be taken to indicate the propriety, in the future, of issuing temporary stays and restraining orders to block the publication of material sought to be suppressed by the Government. So far as I can determine, never before has the United States sought to enjoin a newspaper from publishing…