In a striking defense of First and Fourteenth Amendment principles, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Maine state Rep. Laurel Libby, ruling that the Democratic-controlled Maine House cannot bar her from voting or speaking in the chamber while litigation over her case proceeds. The high court’s brief but consequential order restores her ability to represent her constituents—a right she was stripped of following a social media post that criticized transgender participation in girls’ sports.
Libby, a Republican and outspoken advocate for biological fairness in sports, posted a comparison photo in February showing a transgender-identifying student-athlete who had competed in both boys’ and girls’ pole vaulting events. Her post called attention to the controversy surrounding male-born athletes competing against girls in state-level competitions—an issue that has ignited fierce political and cultural debates nationwide.
Two SCOTUS justices just voted that it was OK to strip an elected representative’s right to vote in the legislature b/c the opposing party didn’t like her speech.
Is there a single example of a conservative justice in recent decades doing something close to this egregious? No. https://t.co/qKBuWCipyo
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) May 21, 2025
In response, Maine’s Democratic-led House voted to censure Libby and imposed an extraordinary punishment: until she issued a formal apology, she was barred from voting or speaking on the House floor.
Libby refused to apologize, insisting her post represented a legitimate viewpoint on a matter of public concern. But the sanctions left her constituents voiceless, prompting a lawsuit joined by a group of voters, who argued that their equal representation rights under the 14th Amendment were being violated.
In a 6–3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court granted Libby’s emergency appeal. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the punishment itself, but instead halted it pending the outcome of ongoing litigation. The majority determined that the loss of legislative voting power during an active session constituted an immediate and irreparable harm, particularly to the voters Libby was elected to represent.
Libby celebrated the decision on X (formerly Twitter), writing:
“This is a win for free speech — and for the Constitution. I’ve been silenced for speaking up for Maine girls. Today, my voice—and theirs—is restored.”
The Trump administration, signaling its support, had already filed an amicus brief backing Libby through the Justice Department—part of a broader pattern of defending elected officials and citizens whose speech on gender and biological sex has drawn state or institutional retaliation.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the high bar for emergency intervention had not been met. Jackson noted that Libby had not shown evidence of any crucial or imminent legislative votes where her absence would materially impact outcomes.
She further argued that while Libby’s broader legal claims may have merit, it was “not clear, let alone indisputably so” that she was entitled to emergency relief.
The dissent underscores an increasingly deep divide between speech rights and institutional control, with liberals emphasizing decorum and norms, and conservatives defending the core principle that political speech must be protected—especially when unpopular.
