The military resolves conflicts between a Military Protective Order (MPO) and a civilian court-issued restraining order by generally requiring the service member to obey the order that is more restrictive. While an MPO is a lawful order issued by a commander, a civilian restraining order is a formal judicial order from a court of competent jurisdiction. The principle of comity and federal law, such as the Armed Forces Domestic Security Act, require military authorities to respect and enforce lawful civilian court orders. A commander cannot issue an MPO that “authorizes” conduct that a civilian court order has forbidden.
A military attorney advising a service member in this situation would first analyze both orders to identify any conflicts. If the civilian order is more restrictive—for example, it prohibits all contact while the MPO allows contact for child custody exchanges—the attorney will advise their client that they must obey the stricter civilian order to avoid being arrested by civilian authorities. The attorney would also advise the service member to immediately provide a copy of the civilian order to their command so the command is aware of their legal obligations.
If the military order is more restrictive, the service member must obey the commander’s order to avoid UCMJ punishment. The attorney’s role is to help the soldier navigate these overlapping legal obligations. They may communicate with the command’s legal advisor to have the MPO amended to align with the civilian court order, or they may seek clarification from the civilian court. The goal is to ensure the service member is not placed in an impossible situation where complying with one order would force them to violate another.