Supreme Court Tells Maine House to Revoke Censure of Legislator for Defending Female Sports

Supreme Court Tells Maine House to Revoke Censure of Legislator for Defending Female Sports

In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court told the Maine House to revoke state Rep. Laurel Libby’s (R) censurship pending the appeal of her case against the chamber.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor would deny the application.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and even wrote a four-page opinion. Guess what? It makes no sense. I’ll write about it after I discuss the history of the case.

Libby Censured

The situation started on February 17 when Libby shared a post that identified a male athlete who won a pole vault competition in the female category.

Well, Libby committed the sin of using the male’s “deadname” John. Maine is also at the forefront of the fight to keep males in female sports.

Speaker of the Main House Rep. Ryan Fecteau (D–Biddeford) wrote in an op-ed that “Libby’s social media activity as an issue of ‘privacy of Maine kids’ that can ‘be downright dangerous for the young person involved’ and ‘impact their health and their safety, at school, and in their communities.'”

Fecteau even wrote, “Kids shouldn’t have to worry about a politician sharing images of them online without their consent.”

Libby said she did nothing wrong because the male had been known for several years. The media covering the competition identified the students with their full names, schools, and photos.

The House demanded that Libby take “full responsibility for the incident and publicly apologize to the House and to the people of the State of Maine” over the post.

The Democrat-controlled House voted along party lines, 75-70, to censure Libby.

Libby refused to apologize.

Fecteau pulled Libby aside and gave her another chance to apologize, which she again refused.

Fecteau said Libby violated Rule 401(11), which means “a member who ‘is guilty of a breach of any of the rules and orders of the House … may not be allowed to vote or speak, unless by way of excuse for the breach, until the member has made satisfaction.’”

Libby filed a lawsuit against Fecteau, claiming the legislature violated her rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The First Amendment argument is obvious. The Fourteenth Amendment related to due process centers around Libby representing her district.

Libby has not been able “to speak on behalf of legislation she has sponsored and is effectively barred from representing her 9,000 constituents on critical questions,” reported The Maine Wire on March 11.

From Libby’s lawsuit:

91. Barring Rep. Libby from speaking or voting on the House floor excludes her from the office to which she was duly elected by the people of Maine’s House District 90, even though she satisfies the standing requirements for a person to serve as a member of the Maine House set forth in the Maine Constitution. See Me. Const. Art. IV, Pt. 1, §4; cf. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969).

92. Barring Rep. Libby from speaking or voting on the House floor constitutes a de facto expulsion from the office to which she was duly elected by the people of Maine’s House District 90 without “the concurrence of 2/3” members, as required by the Maine Constitution. Me. Const. Art. IV, Pt. 3, §4.

93. Barring Rep. Libby from voting on the House floor deprives Plaintiffs and voters in House District 90 of their right to vote for a state representative.

94. Canceling Rep. Libby’s representative votes on the House floor in violation of the Maine Constitution’s provisions for House membership violates due process.

95. Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants.

A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to grant Libby preliminary relief as her case progressed.

Jackson’s Opinion

So, yeah, um…where do I start?

My main problem is Jackson’s insistence that Libby “failed to show that there exist ‘critical and exigent circumstances’ necessitating intervention ‘in aid of [our] jurisdictio[n].’”

“Meanwhile, before us, the applicants have not asserted that there are any significant legislative votes scheduled in the upcoming weeks; that there are any upcoming votes in which Libby’s participation would impact the outcome; or that they will otherwise suffer any concrete, imminent, and significant harm while the lower court considers this matter,” wrote Jackson.

Dude, Libby cannot adequately represent the 9,000 people in her district. The punishment extends to those people. It does not matter if there are no “significant legislative votes” or “upcoming votes in which Libby’s participation would impact the outcome.”

The fact is, Libby cannot speak for her constituents on the House floor.

Another problem: “We have long recognized that, to avoid end runs around the ordinary certiorari process, emergency relief should not be granted if the Court would have been unlikely to grant review of the matter in any event.”

Um, considering how the district court has acted, it is more than likely SCOTUS will receive the case.

Also, again, the punishment has silenced 9,000 people!

And no, the situation has not raised many difficult questions, Jackson.

Jackson worries about the precedent it might set, asking if federal courts can determine if a state legislature’s rules are improper or if it violates “a representative’s First Amendment rights to be subject to sanction under such rules, and does it make a difference what the sanction is.”

Oh, come on! The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Constitution applicable to the states! The states cannot violate a person’s rights protected under any of the amendments.

It’s that simple.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.