Court of Appeals Strikes Down ‘Overbroad’ Gag Order in Thurston County Case, Citing First Amendment

A Washington State appellate court has ruled that a trial court’s order banning a man from mentioning his estranged family online “in any manner whatsoever” violates the First Amendment.

In an unpublished opinion filed today, March 31, 2026, Division Two of the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed domestic violence protection orders against Adam Couto but remanded the case back to Thurston County Superior Court.

The appellate panel ordered the trial judge to rewrite the speech restrictions to be more narrowly tailored.

The Background: Coercive Control and a YouTube Video

The consolidated appeal stems from a long, contentious history between Adam Couto and his former wife, Karina Asbach, who divorced in 2012.

According to court records, Couto had multiple DVPOs issued against him over the years protecting Karina, their adult son Aiden, and their minor daughter. Previous proceedings detailed Couto’s history of coercive, aggressive, and emotionally manipulative behaviors toward his family.

Aiden’s protection order expired in October 2023 when he turned 18. In July 2024, Couto posted a public video to YouTube directed at his adult son. In the video, Couto claimed that Karina lied and suffered from narcissistic personality disorder, which he blamed for causing an abnormal relationship with Aiden.

Following the video’s publication, Karina and Aiden filed petitions for new DVPOs in Thurston County Superior Court. Judge Indu Thomas granted the protection orders, officially determining that Couto’s YouTube video was a form of “coercive control” designed to manipulate his family.

To enforce this, Judge Thomas ordered Couto to take down his existing videos—a decision he did not appeal—but also imposed a sweeping prospective ban.

The DVPO stated that Couto was “restrained from posting, sharing, transmitting to third parties or the like any videos or other such media which refers to the petitioner or the parties’ children, whether by name or otherwise in any manner whatsoever.”

The First Amendment Appeal

Couto, representing himself pro se in the appeal against the respondents’ counsel Kevin Hochhalter, challenged the prospective ban on future posts, arguing that it violated his First Amendment rights.

The Court of Appeals agreed.

While the appellate court acknowledged that speech constituting domestic violence—such as coercive control—is unprotected, it found that the trial court’s order swept far too broadly, restricting a massive amount of legally protected speech.

The panel determined the order was a “content-based restriction,” which is presumptively unconstitutional unless it passes strict scrutiny.

To survive strict scrutiny, the government restriction must serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to serve that exact interest. While the court agreed that preventing domestic violence is a compelling state interest, it ruled that the gag order was not narrowly tailored.

The appellate judges pointed out the extreme breadth of the phrase “in any manner whatsoever.” Under the strict wording of the order, Couto could be held in violation for simply acknowledging that he was previously married or had children. He would be prohibited from engaging in a general discussion about parenting or even sending an email to a friend mentioning his ex-wife.

Furthermore, the court noted that the ban would unconstitutionally suppress political speech, because it would restrict Couto from advocating online about his personal experiences with the family court system.

The Relief Granted

Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant the DVPOs for Karina and Aiden, maintaining their physical protections against Couto.

However, the panel remanded the case, ordering the trial court to modify the speech restrictions regarding videos and media.

The appellate court instructed that the new order may still prohibit speech that constitutes coercive control or domestic violence, but it must be written clearly enough to protect Couto’s First Amendment rights to engage in speech outside of those unlawful categories.

The court also denied Couto’s request to have the case reassigned to a different judge or venue on remand, finding no evidence that Judge Thomas’s impartiality could be reasonably questioned.

A copy of the unpublished opinion is available here.