Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse tincidunt sagittis eros. Quisque quis euismod lorem.
By All Rise! P.L.L.C.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has recently and regularly recognizes that tribal courts have “concurrent” jurisdiction with state courts to issue and enforce civil protective orders. Even as recently asJuly 2025, as the “Court has recognized . . . the State and tribe's concurrent jurisdiction over specific civil matters where expressly required by federal statute.” Matter of Stroble, 2025 OK 48.[1] TheCourt even states that “civil protective orders” fall under this category pursuant to 18 U.S. § 2265, yet state court judges continue to doubt the legitimacy of tribal court orders.
I hope this article will put that to rest.There are two ways for tribes and states to approach any jurisdictional dispute: averse or cooperatively. The framework for civil protective orders is clearly meant to be collaborative per Congressional mandate, yet state court actors continue to challenge and usurp tribal court jurisdiction. To me, it seems that some state court judges and practitioners are following the are geographic arguments floating around the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt,[2] but there can be no doubt Congress intended tribes to be able to issue protective orders against non-natives as they just expanded that power in 2022 with the passage of the ViolenceAgainst Women’s Act.[3]Also, anyone that doubts Congress’s intent in VAWA have not read the text itself, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has.
In Spurrv. Pope, the Circuit Court reviewed the provision of VAWA that gives tribal courts authority to issue protective orders. There, the court held, the language was clear. Like some justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, there thePetitioner asserted that VAWA only allowed tribes to issue protective orders over Indians in the tribal court, based on the title of the provision—"Full faith and credit given to protection orders.” But there is “no ambiguity” in VAWA granting tribal courts more expansive authority than merely blessing tribal court protective orders:
Section 2265 unequivocally states that tribal courts “shall have full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders involving any person.” § 2265(e). Its title “cannot undo or limit” what the text makes plain.
Spurrv. Pope, 936 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2019) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, across the country, tribal courts issue protection orders to safeguard survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and other forms of abuse. But too often, those orders are not enforced by local or state law enforcement or courts. Sometimes it's due to unfamiliarity withtribal jurisdiction. Sometimes, it's due to a false belief that tribal court orders don't carry weight off-reservation.
Here’s the truth: Federal law mandates full faith and credit for tribal protection orders.
What the LawSays: 18 U.S.C. § 2265(a)
Under 18 U.S.C. § 2265(a) of the ViolenceAgainst Women Act (VAWA), the law is clear:
“Any protection order issued that is consistent with subsection (b) of this section by the court of one State,Indian tribe, or territory… shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State, Indian tribe, or territory… and enforced as if it were the order of the enforcing State, Indian tribe, or territory.” In plain terms:if a tribal court issues a protection order that meets basic due process requirements (i.e., notice and opportunity to be heard), a state court or law enforcement agency must enforce it—no additional registration, domestication, or state-specific procedure required.
Many survivors live or travel through tribal land. They depend on surrounding state systems to recognize their protection orders. If a tribal order is not enforced in a nearby state court, the survivor is left vulnerable and exposed—often at great personal risk. When a state judge refuses to enforce a tribal protection order—or sends a survivor back to tribal court to start over—it violates federal law and undermines the purpose of VAWA.
Common Misconceptions
Myth #1: “We can’t enforce tribal orders because they’re not from a state court.”
Reality: The statute explicitly includes tribal court protection orders.
Myth #2: “The order needs to be registered with the state first.”
Reality: Subsection (d) of the same statute clarifies that registration cannot be required as a condition of enforcement.
Myth #3: “I don’t know if this tribal court had jurisdiction.”
Reality: Jurisdictional questions should not delay enforcement when the order appears valid on its face and was issued with due process.
EnforcementIs a Matter of Justice
Survivors of violence in tribal communities are among the most at-risk populations in the U.S. Upholding tribal protection orders is not just a legal mandate—it is a moral one.
By enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 2265(a), state courts affirm the sovereignty of tribal nations, the dignity of survivors, and the promise of safety embedded in the Violence Against Women Act.
In sum, when dealing with a tribal protective order issues pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2265, it is important for Oklahoma judges and practitioners to follow the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s guidance as laid out in Milne v. Hudson. There, the Court gave an overview of the protective order provisions discussed, recognizing that Section2265 “includes tribal courts within the list of sovereigns which may issue civil protection orders.” 2022 OK 84, ¶ 16. But, more fundamentally, the Court recognized that tribes and states are not averse in allowing individuals to live harassment-free lives:
However, civil protection orders are different. They are individually tailored and narrowly designed with a single goal — to protect the victim of abuse. Universally, they are recognized in sister courts no matter their court of origin. Tribal governments clearly have a strong interest in protecting their citizens from the violence, threats, stalking, harassment and other behavior which may be covered by a civil protection order. The State ofOklahoma shares those *516 exact same interests in protecting its citizens. The conduct giving rise to civil protection orders identically threatens the health and welfare of citizens of both the Muscogee Nation and the State of Oklahoma.And each one has chosen the same legal vehicle in response.
Most importantly for our analysis, the Tribe and the State here have an identical goal: to provide each individual citizen a swift path to safety, with the combined weight of all the involved sovereigns ready to enforce it. The point of a civil protection order is the promise of immediate action on the individual's behalf. A terrified person may be trying to escape physical or sexual violence. They may be trying to go home or to work or school or church — to go about the everyday business of living — unmolested, without being under surveillance and disruption from a persistent stalker. They may be beset by constant, disturbing, unwelcome communications. The swiftest and surest path to aid is to find the closest avenue for legal protection. Maybe the tribal courthouse is nearby. Maybe it is in another county — another part of the state, even — but a county courthouse is near to hand. The most effective way to achieve the combined tribal and State goal here is to give that scared victim every option to find their swift path to safety.
Milne, the person seeking a civil protection order, is a citizen of both the State and the Muscogee Nation. And, within the geographic boundaries of both the State and the Muscogee Reservation, the Tribe's andState interests are the same. Milne needed protection from violent behavior and stalking. She went to the nearest venue of her choice as a citizen, her county courthouse, for swift relief, and it was granted. Federal law does not prohibit that grant of relief, and equity compelled its issuance. This is that instance in which the exercise of State jurisdiction does not infringe on the interests of a tribal government but serves as an additional safeguard to those interests.
Milne v. Hudson, 2022OK 84, ¶¶ 18-20, 519 P.3d 511, 515–16
Need Help Understanding or Enforcing a Protection Order?
At All Rise!, we assist individuals navigating state and tribal legal systems.Whether you are a survivor, an advocate, or a fellow legal professional, we’re here to support you.
📞 Contact us at admin@allrise.law
🌐 Visit: www.allrise.law
[1]Id. n. 3 (citing In re Guardianship of K.D.B., 2025 OK 10, 564 P.3d83(guardianship proceeding under 25 U.S.C. § 1911 and intergovernmental agreement made pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1919); In re S.J.W., 2023 OK 49, 535P.3d 1235(juvenile deprived proceeding under 25 U.S.C. § 1911); Milne v. Hudson, 2022 OK 84, 519P.3d 511(civil protection order under 18 U.S.C. §2265).
[2] I do not agree with the pro-State interest line—or concurrences—that believe reservations are now statutorily defined in a limited manner, to Title 18 of the United States Code, rather than consistent with the Indian Canons of Construction as to how treaty-relations and the guardian-ward relationship historically existed. See contra Matter of Guardianship ofK.D.B., 2025 OK 10, ¶¶ 1-2, 564 P.3d 83, 100–01 (J. Kane Concurrence).Parties should just challenge tribal court jurisdiction in the tribal court. Matter of Custody of A.R., No. AP 767, 2019WL 4017515 (Fort Peck C.A. Aug. 26, 2019); see also Honanie v. Acothley, No.2011-AP-0003, 2011 WL 9160412 (Hopi C.A. Dec. 29, 2011) (“While other jurisdictions may be required to honor Hopi protection orders under the express requirements of the full faith and credit provisions of the Violence AgainstWomen Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2265, the Hopi TribalCourt has no power to enter a protection order that directly purports to reach conduct outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the Hopi Tribe.”).
(“Consistent with federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2265, this type of protective order is entitled to recognition under full faith and credit principles by any court that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties. It does not allow for any collateral jurisdiction.”).
[3] “[W]hen Congress intends for tribes to be subject to statutory full-faith-and-credit requirements, it expressly says so. . . . the Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1994 states that “[a]ny protection order issued ... by the court of one State, Indian tribe, or territory ... shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State, Indian tribe, or territory.” 18 U.S.C. §2265(a) (emphasis added).” Nygaard v. Taylor, 78 F.4th 995, 1001 (8th Cir. 2023); see also The 2022 Violence Against WomenAct (VAWA) Reauthorization, H.R. 1620; P.L. 103-322; P.L. 117-103 (May 22,2023).
Drop us a line.
