Supreme Court orders Maine House to restore vote of lawmaker punished for Facebook post on transgender athlete

Washington — The Supreme Court docket on Tuesday restored for now a Maine state lawmaker’s proper to vote within the state Home of Representatives after she was punished for a social media put up that recognized a transgender scholar athlete. 

The excessive courtroom granted the request for emergency reduction sought by Laurel Libby, who represents Home District 90 and was censured by her colleagues for a social media put up that criticized the state for permitting transgender athletes at public excessive faculties to compete in ladies sports activities. The web posting from Libby known as out a transgender athlete who competed within the state’s track-and-field championship.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from Supreme Court docket’s resolution to grant an injunction.

Libby shared the put up that sparked her punishment to Fb in February and included images and the title of the athlete, who positioned first within the ladies’ pole vault. Maine permits transgender college students to take part in athletics in accordance with their gender id. The Justice Division has sued the state’s Division of Training over its coverage, which the Trump administration says discriminates in opposition to girls in violation of Title IX. The swimsuit got here after President Trump signed an executive order in February barring transgender women and girls from competing on sports activities groups that align with their gender id.

In response to Libby’s social media put up, the Maine Home voted to censure her. The decision said that Libby refused to take away her put up after she was warned it’d endanger the athlete and stated “it’s a fundamental tenet of politics and good ethical character that kids shouldn’t be focused by grownup politicians, particularly when that focusing on might lead to severe hurt.”

The censure measure directed Libby to “settle for full duty for the incident and publicly apologize to the Home and to the individuals of the state of Maine.” Libby, it concluded, “should comport herself in a way that pursues the best requirements of legislative conduct.

After the decision was accepted by the state Home, Libby was delivered to the nicely of the chamber and instructed to apologize. When she refused to take action, the Home speaker discovered her in violation of a centuries-old Maine Home rule that bars a member who’s in breach of the physique’s guidelines from taking part in debates or vote on issues earlier than it till the member has “made satisfaction.”

Libby and 6 of her constituents sued in federal courtroom to have her proper to vote within the Maine Home restored. A federal district courtroom declined to offer them with preliminary reduction, and the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected a request to intervene.

In searching for emergency reduction from the Supreme Court docket, Libby stated her constituents should not have equal illustration within the chamber. The punishment leaves them “with out a voice or vote for each invoice coming to the Home flooring for the remainder of [Libby’s] elected time period.” Libby was first elected to the state legislature in 2020, and her present time period runs by means of 2026.

However Maine Legal professional Common Aaron Frey argued that Libby is searching for the Supreme Court docket’s intervention in an “intra-parliamentary dispute” that, if granted, would pierce legislative immunity for core legislative acts.

“The ability of a legislative physique to punish its members has been acknowledged within the frequent regulation since historic instances and has been enshrined within the U.S. Structure and lots of state constitutions, together with Maine’s, because the start of our republic,” he wrote. “Likewise, the act of tallying a flooring vote to find out whether or not a measure succeeds or fails is an integral act within the legislative course of. An injunction directing how such processes might unfold can be opposite to the coverage of insulating legislative exercise from ‘outdoors interference’ that undergirds this courtroom’s immunity jurisprudence.”