
15 state attorneys general condemn Rep. Libby's censure as 'attack on Legislature' in letter
May 9—Fifteen Republican attorneys general filed a friend of the court brief in support of Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, charging that her censure in the Maine Legislature was politically motivated and amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
The group, led by West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey, called in a Friday filing for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Libby an injunction restoring her ability to vote and speak on the State House floor. They charge that Libby's censure is an "attack" on the Legislature's ability to function and represent Mainers.
"Perhaps a little too often, applicants come to this Court warning that some decision being challenged is poised to undermine (or even end) our republican form of government," the group wrote. "This time, though, the shoe fits."
Maine House Democrats voted to censure Libby in February over her Facebook post that featured the first name and photos of a transgender high school athlete. Libby filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court late last month, asking that her speaking rights be restored while a federal court in Maine considers a lawsuit she filed against House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, which argues that the censure violates her — and her constituents' — First Amendment Right to free speech.
Lower courts have already ruled against Libby's request, citing Fecteau's right to legislative immunity — the legal doctrine that prevents lawmakers from being sued for their legislative acts.
But the attorneys general argue in their filing that censuring Libby does not qualify as a legislative act, and it is therefore not subject to immunity.
"Even if one could say this suspension was a legislative act, it is of such extraordinary character that it cannot be protected," the group argues. "Representative Libby's suspension disenfranchises all of District 90's voters. And it does so as retribution for the very sort of speech that a legislator must offer — speech on one of the important issues of the day."
They add that the issue of whether transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in girls and women's sports is the subject of active debate across the country, and they note that Libby's comments were made outside the Legislature.
McCuskey was joined by 14 other Republican attorneys general, including those from Florida, Iowa and Louisiana.
Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey has repeatedly stated that it was Libby's conduct, not her views, that earned her the censure, including in a court brief filed Thursday.
"Like other censures of Maine House members, the censure resolution required Rep. Libby to apologize for her conduct — not recant her views," Frey wrote.
Libby, who has refused to apologize, said in a response to Frey filed Friday that critics demanding she do so are exacerbating the harm against her.
"The Speaker cannot insist on an apology to his satisfaction," Libby wrote, "any more than Speaker Johnson could insist on congressmembers' declaring 'Trump is Making America Great Again' as a condition of voting."
She further charges that legislative immunity does not apply to her censure vote, and claims that Frey's "version of legislative immunity is limitless," and could, for example, be used to ban legislators who did not attend a certain university from voting.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
27 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '
'Shoot a couple, the rest will go home,' said a meme circulating on Telegram channels of groups affiliated with the far-right Proud Boys. 'You just have to impale a few of them…' another local chapter posted. One disseminated an online gun tutorial, illustrating optimal shooting techniques with the caption: 'Riot season again!' Organizers in more than 2,000 cities are mobilizing for 'No Kings' rallies Saturday in opposition to President Trump and his military parade in Washington. Among those watching closely: extremist organizations on social media.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Associated Press
34 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Consumer sentiment rose in June for 1st time this year as inflation remains stayed tame
WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer sentiment increased in June for the first time in six months, the latest sign that Americans' views of the economy have improved as inflation has stayed tame and the Trump administration has reached a truce in its trade fight with China. The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan's closely watched consumer sentiment index, released Friday, jumped 16% to 60.5. The large increase followed steady drops that left the preliminary number last month at the second-lowest level in the nearly 75-year history of the survey. Consumer sentiment is still down 20% compared with December 2024. 'Consumers appear to have settled somewhat from the shock of the extremely high tariffs announced in April and the policy volatility seen in the weeks that followed,' Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a written statement. 'However, consumers still perceive wide-ranging downside risks to the economy.' Americans have largely taken a darker view of the economy's future after President Donald Trump unleashed a wide-ranging trade war, imposing steep tariffs on China, the European Union, and dozens of other countries. Yet in April Trump postponed a set of sweeping tariffs on about 60 nations and last month reached a temporary truce with China, after both sides had sharply ratcheted up tariffs on each other. U.S. duties remain elevated compared with historical levels, but so far they have not worsened overall inflation.