The decision is the latest chapter in a dispute that drew the attention of the Trump administration, which has sued Maine for refusing to ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports.
Trump’s ban on transgender troops goes into effect
President Trump’s ban on transgender troops serving in the military is going into effect while court challenges continue.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on May 20 sided with a lawmaker from Maine who was barred from voting until she apologized for a controversial Facebook post about a transgender athlete.
Maine state Rep. Laurel Libby in February made a post criticizing the fact that a transgender high school athlete was allowed to compete in – and win − a pole vaulting competition.
Libby’s posts on Facebook and X went viral, putting Maine’s policy in the spotlight and, according to a majority of her colleagues, endangering the athlete.
They barred her from voting until she apologizes.
The Supreme Court said she can vote while she challenges her punishment as unconstitutional. Libby argues that her First Amendment right to free speech is being violated and her constituents are being disenfranchised.
Two of the court’s three liberal justices − Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson − dissented.
Jackson said the court has watered down its standard for granting emergency relief, which she called an “unfortunate development.”
The majority, she wrote, has opted to “dole out error correction as it sees fit, regardless of the lack of any exigency, and even when the applicants’ claims raise significant legal issues that warrant thorough evaluation by the lower courts that are dutifully considering them.”
The majority gave no explanation for its decision, as is common in responses to emergency requests.
Their decision is the latest chapter in a dispute that drew the attention of the Trump administration, which has sued Maine for refusing to ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports.
Plaintiff in Supreme Court case appears with Pam Bondi at a press conference
Libby appeared at Attorney General Pam Bondi’s April news conference announcing the lawsuit.
Her February social media posts criticized the Maine Principals’ Association for allowing the transgender athlete to compete in the girls’ division a year after competing as a male.
The posts identified the student’s high school, named the student, and drew a yellow circle around photos of the athlete.
School increases security after Facebook post draws attention
The national attention the post generated prompted the school to increase security.
Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau asked Libby to remove the post, citing concerns for the student’s health and safety.
After Libby refused, the House voted 75-70 to censure her for violating lawmakers’ ethics code.
The approved resolution says it’s a “basic tenet of politics and good moral character that children should not be targeted by adult politicians, especially when that targeting could result in serious harm.”
Supreme Court allows Bondi ally to resume voting in Maine
Libby was barred from voting or participating in floor debates during the remainder of the legislative term unless she apologizes or the House votes to lift the sanction, which lawmakers have declined to do at least twice. The Supreme Court’s decision today allows her to resume voting.
Libby and six of her constituents sued the legislature after the punishment was issued.
A federal district judge in Maine rejected Libby’s request that her punishment be suspended.
U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose said the Supreme Court has long considered legislators immune from being sued for their legislative acts. This case doesn’t meet the exceptions to that general rule, she said.
“The censure and its sanction on Representative Libby is, at bottom, an internal Maine House affair,” DuBose wrote.
That’s wrong, Libby’s attorneys told the Supreme Court, because it would mean that U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson could insist all members declare “Trump is Making America Great Again” as a condition of voting.
“The Constitution’s promise of equal representation is not conditioned on whether the majority party approves of a legislator’s speech,” her attorneys wrote in a filing.