A defamation prior restraint ruling from the US District Court for the District of Montana has denied a Montana counsellor’s bid to silence his estranged wife on social media, with Chief Judge Brian Morris holding that enjoining her speech would constitute an impermissible prior restraint under the First Amendment.
The decision in Patterson v. Patterson, handed down on 16 July 2026, refused both a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction sought by James Patterson, a clinician, ordained minister, and military chaplain who also operates a counselling business in Montana. The defendant, Cindy Patterson, is his current wife and a former therapy client.
The Montana Ethical Rule and the Relationship’s Origins
The parties met in 2014, when James Patterson became Cindy Patterson’s professional counsellor. She attended sessions with him over five years. Their professional relationship ended, and intermittent contact followed before, the plaintiff alleges, she began to pursue him romantically around August 2020.
Before proceeding, the plaintiff investigated the applicable regulatory framework. Montana Administrative Rule 24.219.2301 imposes an absolute prohibition on sexual contact between a licensee and a former client within two years of the termination of professional services. After that two-year period, the rule permits such a relationship only where the licensee can demonstrate there was no exploitation, assessed against factors including the duration of the professional services, the client’s personal history and current mental status, the likelihood of adverse impact on the client, and whether the licensee made any statements during the professional relationship that might have invited a future romantic relationship.
The plaintiff alleges he consulted an approved supervisor with the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy in October 2020, who informed him that a relationship with a former client in Cindy Patterson’s circumstances would not breach applicable ethical standards. The parties began a romantic relationship and married on 12 February 2021. The marriage deteriorated by March 2021. Divorce proceedings are ongoing; the parties remain legally married.
The Prior Restraint Bar and Defamation Standard
The plaintiff alleges Cindy Patterson has published damaging statements to churches, prayer networks, Christian media outlets, counselling professionals, licensing boards, his ordination sponsor, military leadership, Montana public bodies, and on social media. He sought a court order preventing further publication and requiring removal of specific posts on X.
Chief Judge Morris declined on the prior restraint ground. Enjoining Cindy Patterson from publishing statements about their relationship and her characterisation of the plaintiff’s conduct would suppress speech before any court has determined that speech to be unlawful. The court also observed that an injunction framed around prohibiting “defamatory statements” would be unworkable, requiring continuous judicial oversight of what the defendant could say.
On the specific X posts, the court applied the defamation prior restraint analysis to three items. On 20 May 2026, Cindy Patterson posted that professionals had told her the plaintiff ‘groomed’ her in therapy and that she believed she was not his ‘only victim.’ She described him in a separate post as a ‘communal narcissist’ and alleged he had ‘groomed and abused her.’ The court treated the ‘communal narcissist’ characterisation as opinion, noting it ‘merely accuses Plaintiff of being a bad person.’ On the grooming allegations, the court found the plaintiff had not yet produced evidence to disprove the claim, particularly in the face of materially differing accounts from the defendant.
The plaintiff pointed to text messages in which Cindy Patterson assured him he had not ‘exploited’ their professional relationship, and to the alleged dismissal of her complaint by the Montana Board of Behavioral Health, the state authority responsible for regulating professional counselling, social work, marriage and family therapy, and addiction counselling in Montana. Chief Judge Morris treated neither as conclusive.
Wyoming Licence Dispute Remains Unresolved
A further disputed post stated that Wyoming had revoked the plaintiff’s licence. The plaintiff maintains he voluntarily surrendered his Wyoming licence. Cindy Patterson contends the Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Board, established in 1987 to safeguard the welfare of Wyoming citizens receiving mental health services, recommended revocation because of the parties’ relationship, and that voluntary surrender was offered as an alternative to formal revocation proceedings.
The court declined to resolve the dispute on the present record. The Wyoming board’s public licence-verification portal provides access to disciplinary documents for any licensee who has been subject to discipline, and the status of the plaintiff’s licence remains searchable there. Chief Judge Morris found the plaintiff had not introduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate the statement was false, and had therefore not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his libel and slander claims.
The plaintiff may renew his defamation arguments at trial, where the burden of proving falsity will fall to him. Michael Doggett of Doggett Law Offices, PLLC represents the defendant. Subject to any onward procedural steps, the licensing board’s public records are the most direct route to settling the central factual dispute the court left open.
