The danger between ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’

[SecularMotion]

2. Temporary restraining orders do not violate due process

They don't violate due process, as there is notice served on the party and an opportunity for the person against whom one is ordered to appear before a court to have the order lifted or to challenge the issuance. Further, TROs are issued upon a showing of a prima facie reason under the law to issue such an order, either to maintain the status quo during an impending legal matter, or as a protective order to prevent someone from coming to potential harm.

Here in WA, this matter was addressed in State v. Karas, 108 Wn.2d 692, 700, 32 P.3d. 1016 (2001):

"Considering the minor curtailment of [respondent’s] liberty imposed by the protection order and the significant public and governmental interest in reducing the potential for irreparable injury, the Act's provision of notice and a hearing before a neutral magistrate satisfies the inherently flexible demands of procedural due process."

Due process is always a question of (1) whether process is due, and (2) if so, what amount of process is due. Whether or not process is due here is obvious, since there is a curtailment of liberty. The amount of process due has been deemed sufficiently met by notice-and-hearing provisions.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-temporary-restraining-orders-allowed-since-they-violate-a-persons-freedom-of-movement-without-due-process#!n=12