Three weeks ago, Democrats in Maine stripped Republican Laurel Libby of her right to speak on the legislature's floor and vote on bills.
Why?
Rep. Libby rightly criticized Maine's policies allowing males to play girls' sports, and specifically Rep. Libby sharing images from a public sporting event where a boy competed in a Facebook post.
Here's what WMTW reported at the time:
Maine lawmakers have formalized their disapproval of Representative Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) after her social media posts about a transgender athlete.
The posts have received national attention, including from President Donald Trump, who threatened to cut Maine's federal funding because the state allows transgender students in girls' sports.
In a Tuesday night vote, House lawmakers voted 75-70 to censure Libby.
…
Libby cannot vote on bills or speak on the House floor until she offers a public apology. The Representative says she will not take her Facebook post down.
'The citizens in my district are having their voices silenced as well,' Libby said. 'This is a huge infringement on my First Amendment right of free speech.'
This was blatant viewpoint discrimination, and it was a violation of the rights of Rep. Libby's constituents. While the issue was set to be heard before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted an emergency injunction in the case.
In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court restored Rep. Libby's voting rights.
The two dissents? Justices Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
While Sotomayor didn't write an opinion or elaborate on her decision, but simply stated she would have denied Rep. Libby's request for emergency relief.
Brown Jackson, on the other hand, did.
In that dissent, Brown Jackson argued the following:
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.
...
At the very least, by lowering the bar for granting emergency relief, the Court itself will bear responsibility for the resulting systemic disruption, as a surge in requests for our 'extraordinary; intervention—at earlier and earlier stages of ongoing lower court proceedings, and with greater and greater frequency—will undoubtedly follow.
It shouldn't surprise me that a Supreme Court Justice who cannot define what a woman is would have a fundamental problem understanding the Constitutional implications of barring a duly elected state representative from doing her job: representing the people who voted for her.
Rep. Libby has a First Amendment right to criticize her state's insane, misogynistic, and harmful policies.
Her voters have a right to have Rep. Libby vote on legislation before the House -- regardless of whether or not her vote would, to quote Brown Jackson, 'impact the outcome.' Republicans are the minority in the Maine legislature, making it all the more important that the minority party has all voting members present.
The implication that it's no big deal if Rep. Libby is stripped of her voting rights, simply because it won't impact the outcome of legislation, is alarming.
Brown Jackson argued the First Circuit was set to hear arguments on the case 'within weeks' and somehow found it acceptable that Rep. Libby's district go without representation for that time. In fact, the House was set to vote on legislation tomorrow, something Justices Sotomayor and Brown Jackson seemed wholly unbothered by.
Yesterday Speaker Ryan Fecteau was required to turn my voting device back on following the Supreme Court ruling.
— Rep. Laurel Libby (@laurel_libby) May 21, 2025
I look forward to voting tomorrow, when we are back in session, on behalf of my 9,000 constituents, who have had their voices silenced for the last three months. pic.twitter.com/JjqcWbs8GP
There is no doubt in my mind that both Sotomayor and Brown Jackson would've ruled differently if the case brought before SCOTUS was done not on behalf of a Republican minority member in Maine, but Democrats in Tennessee.
Remember the three Tennessee House Democrats who, during a gun control debate, violated TN House rules and were expelled for it? The Left treated it as an unprecedented attack on democracy, President Joe Biden met with them, and Democrats demanded that Attorney General Merrick Garland investigate TN Republicans for violating their rights.
Contrast that with what Rep. Libby did: criticize a state policy that actively harms women and girls. She violated no House rules or ethics. She did not interrupt the business of the Maine House. She did not threaten or abuse other House members.
She spoke her mind.
Democrats punished her for it, which is totally on-brand or the so-called 'Party of Women.'
And two Supreme Court Justices found no problem with that.
