Back in February, Maine state representative Laurel Libby got censured by the states House of Representatives for posting a tweet featuring state track-and-field champions photos with the same kid that won the recent women's pole vault also placing fifth in men's poll vault two years prior. (Tweet on page 9 of this pdf.)
The censure (passed narrowly along party lines) is based on the notion that Libby is endangering the minor athlete with all this publicity, and that she must apologize. She refused to do so. The rules of the House of Representatives say that "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." So until Libby apologizes, she is barred from speaking on the floor, and barred from voting.
Libby sued in federal court for 1st Amendment violation. Meanwhile, she has been seeking emergency relief to restore her voting rights (and thus also the representation rights of her constituents). Both the district court and the First Circuit court of appeals have declined to grant her the emergency relief:
finding that legislative immunity precluded it because her sanction by Maine's House speaker was a legislative act, and the disenfranchisement of her district's voters could not overcome that immunity.
Today, the US Supreme Court granted the emergency relief.
The tweet in question is on an important current political topic made by an elected representative, is inline with her platform (which is likely why she got elected in the first place), and has only publicly available information. The censure bases its rationale on possible harm to the minor athlete, based on indirect evidence that harm could happen (but didn't): tweets by others about this kid, and some study finding that trans kids are four times more likely to be bullied.
So it seems to me that this is a clear-cut case of clearly protected political speech by someone whose job it is to speak it.
I am therefore trying to wrap my head around the "legislative immunity" argument that both the district court and first circuit found persuasive. In Maine House of Representatives, some things require a super-majority (2/3 votes), e.g.: overriding the governor's veto. What is to stop the slim majority of one political party of censuring enough members of the opposing party based on similar fig-leaf reasons, depriving them of the ability to vote, and thus gaining the super-majority?
p
Back in February, Maine state representative Laurel Libby got censured by the states House of Representatives for posting a tweet featuring state track-and-field champions photos with the same kid that won the recent women's pole vault also placing fifth in men's poll vault two years prior. (Tweet on page 9 of this pdf.)
The censure (passed narrowly along party lines) is based on the notion that Libby is endangering the minor athlete with all this publicity, and that she must apologize. She refused to do so. The rules of the House of Representatives say that "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." So until Libby apologizes, she is barred from speaking on the floor, and barred from voting.
Libby sued in federal court for 1st Amendment violation. Meanwhile, she has been seeking emergency relief to restore her voting rights (and thus also the representation rights of her constituents). Both the district court and the First Circuit court of appeals have declined to grant her the emergency relief:
Today, the US Supreme Court granted the emergency relief.
The tweet in question is on an important current political topic made by an elected representative, is inline with her platform (which is likely why she got elected in the first place), and has only publicly available information. The censure bases its rationale on possible harm to the minor athlete, based on indirect evidence that harm could happen (but didn't): tweets by others about this kid, and some study finding that trans kids are four times more likely to be bullied. So it seems to me that this is a clear-cut case of clearly protected political speech by someone whose job it is to speak it.
I am therefore trying to wrap my head around the "legislative immunity" argument that both the district court and first circuit found persuasive. In Maine House of Representatives, some things require a super-majority (2/3 votes), e.g.: overriding the governor's veto. What is to stop the slim majority of one political party of censuring enough members of the opposing party based on similar fig-leaf reasons, depriving them of the ability to vote, and thus gaining the super-majority?
More options
Context Copy link