Maine Rep. Laurel Libby Asks SCOTUS to Intervene in Lawsuit Alleging Violations of Constitutional Rights

Maine Rep. Laurel Libby’s (R-Auburn) has filed an emergency petition to the United States Supreme Court, asking for their intervention in her lawsuit against Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau (D-Biddeford) over the fallout from her party-line censure earlier this year that stripped her of her rights to speak on the floor or vote in the legislature.

Rep. Libby’s appeal comes almost immediately after the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied her motion for an emergency appeal that would have expedited the legal process. As a result of this ruling, Rep. Libby’s appeal was set to continue along a regular timeline.

Her petition was submitted to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who oversees emergency requests from the First Circuit.

Justice Jackson has the authority to act on the application herself or refer it to the full Court.

The censure sparking this lawsuit came after Libby refused to apologize for a viral social media post depicting a biologically male high school student athlete who took first place in a girls’ track and field contest.

The post continued to gain traction nationwide as it reached up to the highest levels of government and spurred a show-down between Maine Governor Janet Mills and U.S. President Donald Trump (R) on February 27.

Earlier this month, Rhode Island-based U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose denied Rep. Libby’s initial request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the terms of the censure imposed upon her by the Democratic majority in the House.

[RELATED: Federal Court Rules Against Rep. Libby’s Suit, Effectively Upholding Her Censure and Silencing]

After Libby refused House leadership’s demand to apologize for the post — a condition of her censure — Speaker Fecteau stripped her of her right to vote and and participate in floor debates.

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

Concerns over the lack of representation for Libby’s 9,000 constituents have featured prominently in her case, as she is currently be prevented from partaking in two fundamental components of serving in the Legislature. A half dozen of her constituents joined her as plaintiffs in her complaint against House Speaker Fecteau.

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

Judge DuBose explained in her ruling that she denied Libby’s request for a preliminary injunction based solely on the principle of “legislative immunity,” without delving into the constitutional questions presented in the case.

Although she recognized that the censure was a “weighty sword to yield,” DuBose argued that Democrats adhered to legislative procedure and are thus protected by legislative immunity.

While there are exceptions to legislative immunity, DuBose determined that Libby’s case does not rise to the severity necessary for this exception to apply, cautioning that federal judges should not “improperly intrud[e] into internal state legislative affairs [or] warring sides in partisan state legislators’ battles.”

This focus on the threshold issue of legislative immunity in her decision is unsurprising given that this issue also took up the majority of time during oral arguments earlier this month.

[RELATED: Laurel Libby and Ryan Fecteau Face Off in Opening Hearing of Legal Battle Over Censure Fallout]

Libby announced her Supreme Court filing in an X post Monday afternoon.

“For over 60 days, my constituents have had no say in actions taken by their government, actions that directly impact their lives,” she said. “Every vote taken on the floor of the Legislature is a vote my constituents cannot get back. The good people of our district have been silence and disenfranchised.”

“For more than 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that retaliating against a representative for exercising their right to free speech violates the First Amendment — as has consistently rejected immunity claims in nearly identical circumstances,” her press release explained. “Yet Maine continues to insist it can silence Rep. Libby and deprive her constituents of representation for the remainder of her term.”

According to this statement, Libby is asking the Supreme Court to “correct the erroneous judgements of the lower courts, which claimed they lacked authority to intervene” and to do so before “the Maine Legislature’s current special session days scheduled for next week.”

Libby also indicated that she hopes to see the Court “demand an expedited response from the Maine Attorney General’s office” and “uphold constitutional protections against viewpoint discrimination and suppression of dissent.”

“The case stands as a critical test of whether state legislatures can punish duly elected officials for their protected speech — and whether constituents can be denied their rightful voice in government,” she concluded.