Free Speech Group Supports Laurel Libby in Lawsuit Against House Speaker Ryan Fecteau After Being Censured for Viral Social Media Post

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has filed an amicus brief in support of Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) in her lawsuit against Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau (D-Biddeford) seeking relief for his stripping her of the right to vote and speak on the chamber floor after she refused to apologize for a viral social media post.

FIRE’s self-defined mission is to “defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought.”

In their brief, FIRE argues that the House went too far in barring Rep. Libby from voting and participating in floor debates, suggesting that it was a form of retaliation against her for expressing a viewpoint with which they disagreed.

“Not only is the punishment an end-run around the super-majoritarian provisions of the Maine Constitution, it is also an egregious violation of the First Amendment,” FIRE argued. “There is little question the House majority targeted Rep. Libby because of her viewpoint.”

The organization also underscored the critical and constitutionally protected role that photographs have played and continue to play in consequential political discussions.

“The use of images to make political points follows a venerable American tradition utilized by many speakers throughout our nation’s history, including advocates for the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War Movement who used evocative images to start national conversations and change public opinion,” FIRE wrote.

[RELATED: Rep. Libby Files Federal Lawsuit Against Speaker Fecteau for Violating Her Constitutional Rights]

Libby was censured by a party-line vote in February for posting an image on social media that gained significant traction that identified a biologically male athlete who took first place in a girls’ track and field contest.

After she refused to apologize for the post — a condition of her censure — Speaker Fecteau stripped Libby of her right to vote and speak on the floor of the Maine House of Representatives.

Libby still retains her right to sponsor legislation, present motions, engage in committee work, and testify at public hearings.

[RELATED: House Dems Strips Laurel Libby’s Voting Rights Over Viral FB Post of Male Athlete Beating Girls]

In early March, Libby sued Fecteau for allegedly violating her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by preventing her from speaking and voting.

Fecteau pushed back against these allegations Monday in a written statement opposing Libby’s request for an injunction, suggesting that none of her rights have been violated as a result of the fallout from her censure.

“If a legislator refuses to comply with the conditions of censure imposed by the House, the House must be able to punish that contumaciousness,” Fecteau wrote, characterizing Libby’s actions as stubborn disobedience.

[RELATED: Maine House Speaker Responds to Laurel Libby’s Lawsuit By Saying Her Rights Are Not Protected]

FIRE’s amicus brief supports Libby’s request for an injunction preventing Fecteau from enforcing the prohibition against her ability to vote and participate in floor debates.

“The First Amendment unquestionably protects Rep. Libby’s post,” FIRE argued. “There is ‘practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs’ and ‘public issues,'” they explained. “Photographs, as a medium of expression, fall squarely within the ambit of the Constitution’s protections.”

FIRE then went on to enumerate several examples of how visual media provides “concrete and tangible evidence” that allows audiences to make up their own mind about an issue based on “the raw image, rather than taking the speaker’s word for it,” including of the Little Rock Nine, the “Napalm Girl,” and the victims and survivors of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook.

“Rep. Libby’s use of images represent an attempt to put a spotlight on what she believes to be an injustice and galvanize supporters to action,” they said. “Even though her post provoked discomfort and offended some who saw it, there is no question her speech enjoys the full protections of the First Amendment just like those other historical and contemporary examples.”

The organization then goes on to strongly argue that the Maine House of Representatives “explicitly and unconstitutionally retaliated against Rep. Libby for the content and viewpoint of her speech.”

FIRE then pointed toward several instances where minor children have previously been identified by other members of the House where they were not censured or stripped of their rights for doing so.

“Had Rep. Libby celebrated the student’s victory, it is difficult to imagine she would have been censured or silenced,” FIRE said. “The only reason Rep. Libby’s post drew the ire of the House and resulted in her censure and silencing is that she criticized rather than celebrated the student. This is blatant viewpoint discrimination. If laudatory speech cannot be silence, neither can critical speech.”

“The government cannot retaliate against Rep. Libby, stop her from doing her job, and effectively disenfranchise her constituents merely because her speech elicits strong emotions or challenges dominant perspective — or even because the House majority dislikes Rep. Libby’s views,” they added.

“By barring Rep. Libby from voting or speaking on the floor of the House, the House majority went far beyond merely expressing displeasure and veered into blatantly unconstitutional viewpoint-based retaliation,” FIRE concluded.

Libby thanked FIRE for their amicus brief in a post on X Thursday afternoon.

Note: This article was updated on April 8, 2025 to correct the identification of FIRE’s acronym to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.