Democratic Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau (D-Biddeford) has filed his official response to Rep. Laurel Libby’s (R-Auburn) lawsuit against him for violating her rights as an elected legislator by censuring her earlier this year.
Rep. Libby was censured by a party-line vote in February brought by House Democrat leadership for posting a viral image on social media 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.
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: House Dems Strips Laurel Libby’s Voting Rights Over Viral FB Post of Male Athlete Beating Girls]
Libby’s suit seeks declaratory relief that her censure violated her rights, as well as injunctive relief to remedy her silencing and the removal of her voting privileges by restoring these rights.
As is often done, the suit also seeks legal expenses from the defendant for the costs of the action as well as “any other legal and equitable relief the Court may deem just and proper.”
“Instead of having an open and honest debate about the devastating impacts of Maine girls being forced to compete against biological males, Speaker Fecteau and his Democratic colleagues resorted to canceling and silencing me,” Libby said in a statement issued about the suit.
Libby’s suit names as co-plaintiffs a half dozen specific constituents, as she has been effectively prevented from representing their interests in the State House since her censure earlier this year.
Her 29-page complaint also cites specific examples of Fecteau posting photos of students for political purposes — underscoring her contention that she acted no differently than her accusers do themselves, and that her conduct was within the norms of practice for a state legislator.
Libby further suggests that her actions were driven by a desire to both protect female athletes and highlight that Maine is in violation of President Donald Trump’s (R) executive order barring biological males from participating in female school athletics.
[RELATED: Rep. Libby Files Federal Lawsuit Against Speaker Fecteau for Violating Her Constitutional Rights]
On Monday, Fecteau filed his official opposition to Libby’s motion for an injunction against the effects of her censure, arguing that she fails to demonstrate a likelihood to succeed on the merits of her case.
According to Fecteau, the fallout from Libby’s censure is protected by “legislative immunity,” which guarantees that lawmakers have no liability for legislative acts under most circumstances.
Following this logic, Fecteau suggests that because the House is expressly empowered to enact rules and punish members for violating them, his decision to strip Libby of her power to speak and vote is protected by legislative immunity.
“It does not matter that the punishment imposed by the House precludes Rep. Libby from voting on the House floor or engaging in debate on the House floor,” said Fecteau. “The relevant distinction is between legislative acts and non-legislative acts, not between forms of discipline.”
Fecteau then argues that Libby has no grounds to claim that her First Amendment rights have been violated because voting on legislation is not a protected right.
“Rep. Libby incorrectly presumes that as a state legislator, she can raise a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants based on the votes of the Maine House,” he said. “She may not.”
“Rep. Libby does not have a First Amendment right to vote on any particular piece of legislation that comes before the House, and absent a right to vote she has no right to debate those bills,” Fecteau argued.
He also pushed back against Libby’s assertion that her Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the fallout from her censure.
According to Fecteau, the state’s “important regulatory interests” generally permit “reasonable, non-discriminatory restrictions” on constitutional rights.
“The House’s interests furthered by the censure are compelling,” he argued. “Here, the damage Rep. Libby inflicted on the House’s reputation and integrity was considerable.”
“In violation of that Code, Rep. Libby singled out a child based on their gender identity and, without the child’s consent, nationally publicized their name, school, and photograph, in the course of condemning the child’s participation in a school event,” said Fecteau.
In conclusion, Fecteau argued that the House must retain the authority to punish members for failing to comply with rules.
“The balance of equities and the public interest lie with Defendants, and ensuring that the House can enforce rules to which all members have agreed,” he concluded.
The court will now be tasked with deciding whether or not to grant Libby’s request for an injunction that would prevent Fecteau from enforcing the prohibitions on speaking and voting while the lawsuit unfolds.
