Petitioner alleges that New Hampshire does not provide equal protection under the law to its citizens when deciding whether to issue domestic violence orders of protection.

Petitioner asserts he has never committed a violent act, nor threatened to do so. However, Petitioner is presently subject to a protective order, first issued from 12/30/2019 through 12/29/2020, because he did not have scheduled parenting time when he attempted, peacefully, to attend a public church service in Massachusetts where Respondent and their children were present. A "one-year extension " [sic] from 12/30/2020 through 2/25/2023 (2 years, 1 month, 26 days) was subsequently granted when, on appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court disqualified the trial court judicial officer, yet "express[ed] no opinion as to the merits of the underlying motion to extend the protective order, " that Petitioner requested it review.

In a different recent New Hampshire domestic violence case, the trial court did not issue any protective order, despite graphic descriptions of physical and sexual abuse at trial by the plaintiff, who was subsequently shot by the defendant, prompting extensive news coverage. A subsequent internal review by the New Hampshire Judicial Branch concluded that the trial court applied the New Hampshire statutory law, as interpreted by New Hampshire Supreme Court precedent, in good faith and that the decision was not unreasonable.

The first question presented is: Whether the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause require objective standards for the issuance or extension of a domestic violence order of protection; and, if so, what are those objective standards?

The protective order against Petitioner prohibits him from traveling within 2,000 feet of the Massachusetts church at all times, despite that Respondent is a resident of Michigan, and was a resident of California when she first filed the action. However, the order nevertheless does allow Petitioner to travel within 1,000 feet of Respondent 's home, or Respondent herself.

Petitioner requested that the order be amended, to permit Petitioner to leaflet on public property near the Massachusetts church, when Respondent was in a different state, which request the trial court denied. The New Hampshire Supreme Court subsequently upheld the trial court 's determination that "there is no less restrictive means available by which to protect [Respondent] from [Petitioner] ... when she visits the east coast and wants to exercise her constitutional free exercise and associational rights. "

The second question presented is: Does this violate Petitioner 's First or Fourteenth Amendment rights?

Whether the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause require objective standards for the issuance or extension of a domestic violence order of protection; and, if so, what are those objective standards?