Supreme Court restores voting privileges of censured anti-trans Maine Republican lawmaker
The U.S. Supreme Court has restored the voting privileges of Maine state Rep. Laurel Libby, a Republican, who was censured and barred from voting in the state House of Representatives after she outed and deadnamed a transgender student athlete.
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
Libby and six of her constituents sued Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau and others over the censure, claiming it had interfered with her work as a legislator and violated her constituents' voting rights. The high court Tuesday granted her request for a preliminary injunction that restores her vote while the lawsuit proceeds. The court's vote was 7-2, with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the minority. Lower courts had refused to intervene in the case, citing the doctrine of legislative immunity, which protects lawmakers from certain legal actions.
'Not very long ago, this Court treaded carefully with respect to exercising its equitable power to issue injunctive relief at the request of a party claiming an emergency,' Jackson wrote in her dissent. 'The opinions are legion in which individual Justices, reviewing such requests in chambers, declined to intervene — reiterating that 'such power should be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.''
'Those days are no more,' she continued. 'Today's Court barely pauses to acknowledge these important threshold limitations on the exercise of its own authority. It opts instead to dole out error correction as it sees fit, regardless of the lack of any exigency and even when the applicants' claims raise significant legal issues that warrant thorough evaluation by the lower courts that are dutifully considering them.'
Libby had posted a photo of a trans female athlete on Facebook in February and deadnamed her. Libby has frequently denounced the presence of trans girls and women in female sports. 'It is fundamentally unfair to allow biological males to compete in girls' sports, yet that is what's happening in Maine,' she wrote in one Facebook post. She has also praised Donald Trump's executive order that threatens to take federal funding from any state that allows trans girls and women to compete alongside cis females in school sports.
A few days after she posted the photo of the athlete, the Maine House voted 75-70 to censure Libby, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against. That meant she couldn't vote or speak on the House floor unless she apologized, which she refused to do.
Libby defended her post as free speech, but Democrats said it was wrong to target the student. 'There is a time and place for policy debates,' Fecteau, a gay Democrat, said at the time. 'That time and place will never be a social media post attacking a Maine student. Maine kids and all Maine people deserve better.' Fecteau said he had not asked Libby to deny her beliefs but merely wanted her to apologize to the girl. He had previously spoken to Libby and asked her to remove the post, but she refused. It has been shared widely and helped spur a confrontation between Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills.
At a White House meeting in February, Trump demanded that Mills comply with his executive order, and she said she'd see him in court. She recently won a settlement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that restored Maine's school meal funding, which the USDA had frozen because of her support for trans youth. The Trump administration is still pursuing other legal action against Maine.
Libby praised the high court's action in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
Oz nudges Senate Republicans to ease off on Medicaid cuts
House Republicans are aiming to slash funding for the nonpartisan watchdog for waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government by nearly half in the next fiscal year, according to spending bill text released Sunday night. The House Appropriations subcommittee funding Congress and its support agencies, led by chairman David Valadao (R-Calif.), is set to mark up their fiscal 2026 measure Monday evening, with the full committee set to act Thursday. The Legislative Branch bill would provide $6.7 billion — $51 million below the current funding level, which was set in fiscal 2024. Per tradition, the House bill does not touch any Senate funding. 'Chairman Valadao's bill puts the American people first — in strengthening the institutions that represent them, protecting effective governance, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars,' said House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) in a statement. The deepest cuts in the bill are to the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress that would see a $396.5 million reduction from current levels to $415.4 million. GAO has served as the nation's chief investigator of wrongdoing at federal agencies for more than a century, but has been fighting for months as Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration have attempted to undercut its legal conclusions and independence. Now, they are attempting to shrink the agency into submission as it pursues nearly 40 investigations into whether the White House is illegally withholding, or 'impounding,' money Congress had previously approved. Also tucked into the bill is a major policy change that would eliminate the GAO's ability to bring civil action against the executive branch over impoundments of funds. 'GAO's work makes it possible for the legislative branch to hold government accountable,' said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute. 'Congress needs independent expert advice, which is exactly what GAO provides.' Also on the chopping block is the Library of Congress, which is another legislative branch agency also engaged in a power struggle against intrusion by the Trump administration. The bill allocates $767.6 million for the Library of Congress, which is $84.5 million below the current funding level and $133.7 million below the FY26 request. 'This bill does nothing to safeguard against the growing levels of executive overreach into legislative branch agencies,' said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the legislative branch subcommittee. Some other key provisions in the GOP-written bill include: Capitol Police: The Capitol Police would see a $84.4 million boost to their funding under the bill, bringing the total to $891 million. Some lawmakers had asked for an increase in office funding for use for security, but the bill flat-funds the Members Representational Allowance, which can be used for some member security purposes. Member Pay: The bill would continue the member pay freeze that has been in effect since 2013, halting automatic cost of living increases that members of Congress are supposed to get under law. Gay marriage: The bill includes language that prohibits discrimination against any person who 'speaks, or acts' in accordance with a 'sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.'
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) listens during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2025. Credit - Kayla Bartkowski—Getty Images She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them. Write to Nik Popli at
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Senate Bill Would Protect Thousands of Migrants From Deportation
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senate Democrats introduced new legislation to protect hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have had their legal status revoked by the Trump administration. The so-called Safe Environment from Countries Under Repression and Emergency (SECURE) Act would offer "long-term stability" for those under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) programs, if it is able to pass in a Republican-controlled Congress. Why It Matters The Trump administration has argued that TPS was abused by the Biden administration, allowing thousands of immigrants from countries including Venezuela, Afghanistan and Haiti to remain in the U.S. for longer than necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the White House to end some of these protections. The U.S. Capitol Building at dusk on June 21, 2025, in Washington. The U.S. Capitol Building at dusk on June 21, 2025, in To Know Democratic Senators Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada were among the 30 lawmakers backing the legislation that would open the pathway to permanent residency for those who received TPS. According to a press release from the group, TPS and DED holders in the U.S. for five years or longer would be eligible to apply for a green card, along with their spouse, domestic partner and children, as long as they met certain requirements. The bill would also make TPS applicants eligible for work and allow them to apply for travel outside the U.S. while their application is pending. TPS is usually granted for a period of 18 months, and it is up to the Secretary of Homeland Security to discontinue protections or extend them, which has been done for a number of countries for several years, including during the first Trump administration. Current Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has moved to end protections for those from Venezuela, Haiti, Cameroon, Afghanistan and Nepal since January. Under the Democrat-backed bill, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to notify Congress and justify why status was being revoked. Currently, about a half-million immigrants who were allowed to legally remain in the U.S. on TPS face the chance of deportation, some to countries still experiencing conditions that led to protections being introduced in the first place. Noem has argued that those situations have eased and that it is time for immigrants to return to their home countries. What People Are Saying Senator Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, in a press release: "America has long used the TPS and DED programs to offer special legal protections to individuals in the United States whose lives would be put at extreme risk if forced to return to their countries of origin. As they've sought safety and stability here, TPS and DED recipients have built new lives in America, living here legally for years—sometimes decades—and making important contributions to our communities. "But the Trump Administration is threatening both the lives they have built and the safety of these individuals—forcing TPS recipients to return to dangerous places like Haiti, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and more. This bill offers much-needed certainty to TPS and DED recipients – providing a path to stay safely in the U.S. and continue to call America their home." Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO president, in a press release: "Immigrant workers are under unprecedented attack: hundreds of thousands of people have been stripped of their legal status and work authorization, throwing families and industries into chaos and uncertainty. "Workers with Temporary Protected Status, many of whom have lived and worked in our country for decades, are vital members of our communities and our unions. The SECURE Act is common-sense legislation that would provide TPS holders with stable, permanent lawful status so they can continue to raise their families, work, and contribute to our economy." What Happens Next While 30 senators back the bill, it is not clear whether it will pass the chamber or be backed in the House, which is also controlled by Republicans.
