The US Supreme Court has stepped in to overturn the Maine legislature’s censure of Republican Representative Laurel Libby, marking a clear win for those opposing legislative punishments aimed at curbing political expression. The 7-2 ruling, issued Tuesday, instructed Maine lawmakers to rescind the sanctions they imposed on Libby over a social media post that identified a transgender high school athlete who had placed first in a girls’ pole vault event.
We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.
The Court found that Libby’s claim merited immediate relief, stating that her right to be free from censure for speech made in her official capacity was “indisputably clear.” Since February, the censure had effectively stripped Libby of her ability to participate in floor debates or vote on legislative matters unless she apologized, a condition she steadfastly rejected.
Following the ruling, Libby posted a celebratory message on X: “This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself. 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.”
The decision drew pushback from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson voiced particular concern over the Court’s expanding use of emergency rulings, warning that such interventions risked distorting the judicial process. “The watering down of our Court’s standards for granting emergency relief is, to me, an unfortunate development,” she wrote, cautioning that it would lead to more premature and frequent appeals for Supreme Court involvement.
Despite public criticism, Libby maintained that no one directly affected by the post ever contacted her. The first complaint, she said, came from Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, who asked her to delete the post, citing concerns for the student’s safety and a longstanding political custom of avoiding public mention of minors.
In a February 18 letter, Fecteau warned: “In addition to risking the young person’s safety, your post violates one of the long-held political traditions of ‘leaving kids out of it’—a tradition that has even been observed by political pundits with regard to the treatment of kids who are in the White House, the most scrutinized office in the nation.”
Fecteau later told Libby her punishment could be lifted if she issued an apology. She refused. Instead, Libby took the matter to court, challenging the censure as unconstitutional. After Maine judges recused themselves, the case was handled by Rhode Island US District Judge Melissa DuBose, a Biden appointee, who ruled against Libby. That decision was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Libby escalated her case to the Supreme Court in April.
In defending the censure, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey argued that the legislature’s action was about upholding procedural integrity, not muzzling beliefs. He stated the censure required Libby to apologize for her “conduct,” not her opinion, and emphasized her refusal to comply with House Rule 401(11), which bars members found in breach of decorum from participating in House proceedings until they “make satisfaction,” defined here as issuing an apology.