Kitsap Judge Hull and Judge Houser Understand the First Amendment, Why Doesn't Judge Ferguson-Brown?

Washington State courts are designed to act as the ultimate backstop against unconstitutional overreach.

When civil statutes are weaponized to silence individuals, muzzle free expression, or insulate public figures from scrutiny, it is the fundamental duty of the judiciary to recognize the threat and uphold the Constitution.

In Kitsap County, Superior Court Judges Kevin Hull and William Houser have demonstrated a clear, unwavering commitment to defending the First Amendment.

Yet, when Clallam County administrators bypass our local bench and bring in their colleague, Judge Cadine Ferguson-Brown, to act as a visiting judicial officer, that structural understanding of constitutional boundaries completely vanishes.

For local residents already navigating a broken court system, her presence introduces an official who seems fundamentally blind to the limits of her own authority.

The Kitsap Standard: Defending Free Expression

To understand how a functioning judiciary handles unconstitutional gag orders, we only need to look at how Judges Hull and Houser have responded to attempts at prior restraint.

Consider the ordeal of retired Air Force major Rick Rynearson. After engaging in persistent online criticism and posting satirical memes about local politician Clarence Moriwaki, a Bainbridge Island municipal judge granted a sweeping civil stalking protection order against Rynearson.

The lower court explicitly banned him from creating any webpages, images, or memes that included the politician’s name or photograph.

It took an appeal to the Kitsap County Superior Court to end the madness.

In early 2018, Judge Kevin Hull correctly vacated the unconstitutional order. Judge Hull ruled decisively that Rynearson’s online posts and memes were protected political speech under the First Amendment, striking down the prior restraint.

Judge Houser recently upheld this exact same constitutional standard when a similar attack was launched against The Olympic Herald.

During a May 28 hearing, Benjamin Mavy attempted to use a civil anti-harassment statute to secure a judicial order restraining this publication from printing “identifying information” or “unique contextual details” about him.

Judge Houser delivered a blistering, on-the-record rejection of the demand. Citing established case law, the court noted there is “no harassment exception to the First Amendment.”

In denying the proposed order, Judge Houser stated explicitly that restraining a respondent from publishing identifying information about a protected person is plain and simple prior restraint.

The court noted that a protection order with that type of prior restraint simply is not valid, declaring it an unconstitutional order.

Judge Ferguson-Brown: Political Insulation and Failure to Prepare

When we contrast these firm defenses of the Constitution with the actions of Judge Cadine Ferguson-Brown, the discrepancy is alarming. But perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising, given her history of bypassing democratic and procedural accountability.

Judge Ferguson-Brown’s judicial career itself is a testament to political insulation.

In November 2023, Mason County citizens formally ousted her from office at the ballot box, voting her out by a massive 15-point margin in favor of her challenger.

Yet, the clear will of the voters meant nothing to the political establishment. Less than two months after she was democratically removed by the public, Governor Jay Inslee intervened, immediately appointing her to a vacant Superior Court seat in neighboring Kitsap County.

Because her permanent home is on the Kitsap bench, Clallam residents only encounter her when she is brought into our community.

Since being brought into Clallam County as a visiting judge by Presiding Judge Simon Barnhart’s administration, court observers have expressed deep concern over her performance.

Reports indicate that Judge Ferguson-Brown is frequently completely unprepared for hearings, resulting in a systemic waste of taxpayer-funded court resources.

A Track Record of Enabling Dangerous Offenders

The controversial rulings that cost Judge Ferguson-Brown her Mason County seat—and continue to plague her tenure—reveal a pattern of alarming leniency toward violent offenders and a complete disregard for public safety.

In February 2023, Judge Ferguson-Brown presided over a catastrophic arson case where a man poured gasoline on the front porch of a rehab facility and set it ablaze in the middle of the night while nearly two dozen people slept inside.

The suspect, angry over a domestic grievance involving his ex-girlfriend, fought police with a loaded flare gun. Despite the immense risk to the community, Judge Ferguson-Brown set his bail at a shockingly low $25,000.

That very same month, a woman shot her boyfriend multiple times in the face, chest, and arm. Despite prosecutors requesting $500,000 bail due to the ongoing threat to public safety, Judge Ferguson-Brown released the accused shooter a single day later on a mere $5,000 bail.

When the local judiciary paralyzed itself following the arrest of Johnny Watts, the former Clallam County Drug Court Coordinator accused of running a heavily armed, bulk fentanyl and methamphetamine ring, Judge Ferguson-Brown was brought in as a visiting officer to handle the preliminary appearances.

True to form, she processed the procedural mechanisms that ultimately allowed a man accused of supplying lethal narcotics to bond back out onto the streets.

This record of structural leniency has now evolved into an overt hostility toward basic constitutional protections.

The Unconstitutional Erasure of Free Speech

Just as she has proven herself soft on dangerous individuals in criminal matters, Judge Ferguson-Brown has proven herself entirely willing to hand them unconstitutional tools to silence disclosure in civil court.

In an order issued in March 2026, Judge Ferguson-Brown willingly signed a blatant, unconstitutional prior restraint into law.

Bypassing the rigorous standards of the First Amendment, she explicitly ordered that the respondent was restrained from publishing statements intended to harass, intimidate, or threaten the protected person.

She further mandated that the respondent shall not encourage or use a third person to post or share statements online or via any other mode intended to harass, intimidate, or threaten the protected person.

Most egregiously, Judge Ferguson-Brown explicitly wrote into the order that the respondent is restrained from publishing identifying information about the protected person.

By explicitly ordering a citizen to cease publishing identifying information about another adult, Judge Ferguson-Brown executed the exact brand of “plain and simple prior restraint” that Judge Houser warned was entirely invalid and unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Literacy Gap

The contrast within the Kitsap judiciary could not be sharper.

When presented with retaliatory attempts to suppress facts or opinions, Judges Houser and Hull stood as guardians of the law, recognizing that a court-ordered injunction cannot be used to bypass the United States Constitution.

Judge Ferguson-Brown, by contrast, has demonstrated that she will bring the same lack of preparation and disregard for fundamental rights to the bench that originally caused voters to reject her.

Clallam County’s justice system is already buckling under the weight of an unprecedented administrative bottleneck. The last thing this community can afford is a visiting judicial officer who imports an absolute ignorance of free speech rights into our local courthouse.