If a restraining order does not infringe upon the target's rights, it may be issued without need for due process of law. This is quite reasonable. Let me give a simple example.
Suppose I am bothered every evening my supper is interrupted by a certain person who comes to my door. I have no reason to believe that this person has committed or intends to commit any crime, but nonetheless I find him annoying. Unless this person has some legitimate legally-established right to walk up to my door (e.g. if he was renting a room from me and had a lease) I would have the right to seek a restraining order against him. I would not have to prove or even allege any crime or fear of a crime. The mere fact that I found his presence annoying would suffice.
The reason such a restraining order may be so freely issued is that it does not infringe upon the target's rights. My front walk is my own property, and I would have the right to forbid just about anyone from setting foot there. What service of the restraining order does is put the recipient legally on notice that he may not set foot on my property--even the parts generally open to the public--and that if he does so it may be regarded as criminal trespassing.
Domestic violence restraining orders are a little different, but when the recipient's rights are not affected they may also be issued freely. The most important effect of the restraining order is to put the recipient on notice that there is no legitimate reason for him to be on the petitioner's property; as a consequence of this, any presence on said property constitutes prima facie evidence of hostile intent. This is most significant if the petitioner is armed, since it will greatly bolster any self-defense case.
Unfortunately, Mr. Lautenberg decided to totally disrupt the proper function of restraining orders by making them abridge the recipient's rights. This makes it much harder for courts to issue restraining orders on the basis of suspicions in the part of the petitioner--suspicions which may be well-founded. Of course, in case of mutual restraining orders, the Lautenberg Act ensures that the woman will be unarmed if the man attacks her, so it actually makes restraining orders worth less than they would be without it.
Thanks....so then a restraining order that does infringe upon the target's rights may be issued with due process of law?