Maine Rep. Laurel Libby’s (R-Auburn) right to vote in the Maine House of Representatives has been temporarily reinstated by the United States Supreme Court as her case is pending on appeal.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating that they would have denied the representative’s request for an injunction. Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion centered around the argument that the Court failed to acknowledge its “threshold limitations” when deciding to issue an injunction in this case.
Late last month, Rep. Libby 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.
Her petition was submitted to Justice Jackson, who oversees emergency requests from the First Circuit, but was then referred to the full Court for consideration.
“This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself,” said Libby in a press release Tuesday afternoon. “The Supreme Court has affirmed what should never have been in question — that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter.”
“This decision restores the voice of 9,000 Mainers who were wrongly silenced,” Libby said. “I am grateful for the Court’s action, and I am ready to get back to work representing the people of House District 90.”
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.
Rhode Island-based U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose denied 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.
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 retained her right to sponsor legislation, present motions, engage in committee work, and testify at public hearings.
[RELATED: Federal Court Rules Against Rep. Libby’s Suit, Effectively Upholding Her Censure and Silencing]
Concerns over the lack of representation for Libby’s 9,000 constituents have featured prominently in her case, as she was being 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.
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.
[RELATED: Rep. Libby Files Federal Lawsuit Against Speaker Fecteau for Violating Her Constitutional Rights]
Libby’s appeal to the Supreme Court came almost immediately after the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied her motion for an emergency appeal that would have expedited the legal process.
Now that the Supreme Court has reinstated Libby’s right to vote, her right to speak on the House floor remains in contention and her case will continue to be considered by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where she is seeking a permanent ruling affirming her position that “legislative leadership cannot weaponize procedure to silence dissent.”
