The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) against Anthony Thomas, affirming the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas. This ruling, issued on November 2, 2026, affects Thomas and his communications with Brooke Ehlers, the director of the Montgomery County Coroner's Office. The court’s decision is significant as it addresses the balance between First Amendment rights and the need for protection against stalking.

The case stems from a series of confrontational emails and in-person encounters between Thomas, Ehlers, and another individual, William Petrey. Ehlers sought the protection order after feeling threatened by the nature of their communications. The court found that Thomas and Petrey had engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused Ehlers to fear for her safety. The appellate court's decision reaffirms the importance of protective measures in cases involving stalking and harassment.

In August 2022, Ehlers received numerous public records requests from Thomas and Petrey regarding several deaths, which they believed were part of a cover-up. Their emails became increasingly aggressive, with some containing threats of legal action and personal attacks. In February 2023, after a tense encounter at the coroner's office, Ehlers petitioned for a CSPO against both men. The court granted the request, imposing a five-year order that included restrictions on their online communications and possession of firearms.

In their first appeal, Thomas and Petrey challenged the CSPO, particularly the provisions that restricted their online speech and firearm possession. The Ohio Court of Appeals found these restrictions to be overly broad and lacking sufficient justification. As a result, the court reversed the order and sent the case back to the lower court for modification. In July 2024, the trial court amended the CSPO, removing the online-posting and weapons prohibitions but leaving other terms intact.

On December 31, 2025, Thomas filed a motion to vacate the CSPO, arguing that the trial court had failed to comply with the appellate court's mandate and had violated his First Amendment rights. However, the magistrate denied his motion, stating that the court had indeed modified the order as directed. Thomas then appealed this decision, raising several assignments of error.

The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge M. Powell, ruled on Thomas's appeal. The court found that Thomas's arguments regarding the trial court's compliance with the mandate were barred by res judicata, meaning he could not raise issues that had already been decided or could have been raised in the previous appeal. The court noted that Thomas had ample opportunity to contest the validity of the CSPO in his earlier appeal but chose not to do so.

The court ruled, "A valid, final judgment is conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated."

Additionally, the court addressed Thomas's claims regarding the need for a First Amendment analysis of the remaining provisions of the CSPO. The court concluded that the trial court had complied with the mandate by removing the previously contested restrictions. Since the remaining provisions were not challenged in the first appeal, the court found that Thomas could not contest them in this motion.

The appellate court also rejected Thomas's argument that the evidence did not support the issuance of the CSPO. The court noted that the statute under which the order was issued does not require a finding of physical harm but rather focuses on whether the respondent caused the petitioner to believe that they would suffer mental distress.

The court stated, "The sufficiency of the evidence was available to be pursued in Thomas's first appeal, and he did not pursue it."

Overall, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the importance of the protections offered by the CSPO in cases of stalking and harassment. The decision underscores the courts' role in balancing the rights of individuals against the need for safety and protection.

The ruling has implications for similar cases in Ohio, as it reinforces the standards for issuing and maintaining civil stalking protection orders. It highlights the necessity for individuals to act promptly in appealing decisions related to such orders and the challenges they may face in raising new arguments in subsequent appeals.

Looking ahead, Thomas may seek further legal recourse, but the appellate court's ruling presents a significant hurdle. The court's decision is final unless Thomas can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a further appeal. There are no indications of related cases pending that might influence this matter.