Supreme Court backs Republican lawmaker in Maine who was punished for transgender athlete remarks

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: NBC News

SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court backs Republican lawmaker in Maine who was punished for transgender athlete remarks

The dispute concerns state Rep. Laurel Libby, who was punished for comments she made about a high school student athlete.


Rep. Laurel Libby at the State House in 2023 in Augusta, Maine. Robert F. Bukaty / AP file

May 20, 2025, 3:03 PM EDT / Updated May 20, 2025, 3:17 PM EDT
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the Maine House of Representatives cannot bar a Republican lawmaker from speaking in the chamber or voting as a result of comments she made about a transgender student athlete.

In a brief order, the high court granted an emergency request from Maine state Rep. Laurel Libby, who faced considerable blowback from a social media post in February when a transgender girl won a pole vault event in the state championship earlier this year.

The Trump administration has offered its support to Libby, with the Justice Department filing a brief in a federal appeals court. Litigation will now continue in that court. … Two of the court's liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed with the outcome. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Libby, a critic of the state's policy to allow transgender athletes to compete in high school sports, posted a photo of the child athlete alongside a photo of the same student competing in the boys' event in a previous year. … The Maine House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, subsequently censured Libby.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna205953

---

Hat tip, Chris Geidner

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Follow
BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court intervenes in Maine state legislative dispute, granting an injunction overruling the state House's decision to prevent a member from voting following her censure by the body for anti-trans remarks targeting a student.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1051
LAUREL D. LIBBY, ET AL. v. RYAN M. FECTEAU,
SPEAKER OF THE MAINE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[May 20, 2025]
The application for injunction pending appeal presented
to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is
granted pending disposition of the appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition
of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely
sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be de-
nied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event
the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall
terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this
Court.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR would deny the application.
JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of the appli-
cation for injunction.
I would deny the application.
ALT
May 20, 2025 at 3:06 PM

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court intervenes in Maine state legislative dispute, granting an injunction overruling the state House's decision to prevent a member from voting following her censure by the body for anti-trans remarks targeting a student.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-05-20T19:06:24.627Z

[MaineBlueBear]

1. They won

But they'll still be the victim.

They asked for an apology and snowflake couldn't do that.

[Polybius]

2. 7-2 decision, with Kagan in the majority

I get it. Taking away her right to vote went too far. The only way that should happen would be to vote her out. Imo at least.

[madville]

3. I agree with it too

I don’t want the majorities in state legislatures to be able to strip members of the minority of their right to vote, especially because they won’t simply issue a public apology regardless of topic. If it is something so egregious to warrant that punishment then they need to be removed from office all together.

[marshall]

4. What commentary did her post contain?

I read that she posted two photos of the child athlete. Was there accompanying derogatory or inflammatory commentary with these photos? If so, that should be reported.