Supreme Court Reinstates Lawmaker Censured for Social Post (2)

The US Supreme Court reinstated voting and speaking privileges for Maine State Rep. Laurel Libby (R), who was censured for identifying a transgender student athlete in a social media post.

The order on Tuesday granted Libby’s emergency request, which said the revocation of her voting and speaking privileges effectively disenfranchised her constituents. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Libby was first elected in 2020 to represent a state House district in south-central Maine. She and other conservative lawmakers were stripped of their committee assignments in 2021 for violating the legislature’s mask mandate.

The latest controversy arose from a Feb. 17 social media post in which Libby, a self-described “outspoken critic” of transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ sports, posted the picture and name of a transgender student who’d won a state pole-vaulting championship.

The Democratic-controlled House censured Libby, calling her post “reprehensible” and saying that it put the student at risk. Transgender “people are over four times more likely to be victims of violence.” Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau (D) also suspended Libby from speaking or voting on the House floor until she apologized for the post.

The Justice Department is suing Maine over its refusal to comply with an executive order banning transgender athletes from participating on girls’ sports teams.

Libby claimed “Victory” in a post on X.

“After 2+ months of being silenced for speaking up for Maine girls, I can once again vote on behalf of the people of House District 90,” Libby said. “This is a win for free speech — and for the Constitution.”

‘Systemic Disruption’

The justices have been inundated with emergency requests, particularly those brought by the Trump administration after losing challenges to executive policies.

In her written dissent, Jackson repeated criticism she’s made in previous requests in saying the justices have intervened too often in response to perceived emergencies.

“Not very long ago, this Court treaded carefully with respect to exercising its equitable power to issue injunctive relief at the request of a party claiming an emergency,” Jackson said. “Those days are no more.”

She lamented the “watering down” for the court’s standards for granting emergency relief, saying it will encourage a “surge” in requests. By “lowering the bar for granting emergency relief, the Court itself will bear responsibility for the resulting systemic disruption,” Jackson said.

The case is Libby v. Fecteau, U.S., No. 24A1051.