Maine Rep Laurel Libby appeals Biden-appointed judge's verdict on controversial trans athlete censure

Maine GOP state Rep. Laurel Libby filed an emergency appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday over a recent ruling that upheld her censure in the legislature.
The state's Democrat majority voted to censure her for writing a social media post that identified a trans athlete who won a girls' state pole vault competition in February. Libby filed a lawsuit against House Speaker Ryan Fecteau to have it overturned, but Rhode Island U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose ruled against Libby on Friday.
DuBose was appointed by former President Joe Biden just before he left office in January.
Libby previously told Fox News Digital that she would appeal the ruling once it was announced, and now she has, and she is willing to take her case to the Supreme Court.
"Our appeal asks the court to correct this abuse of power and reaffirm that legislative leadership cannot use procedural maneuvers and sweeping assertions of immunity to sideline dissenting voices and disenfranchise entire communities," Libby told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"I remain optimistic that the court will recognize what is plainly at stake: the integrity of representative government and the foundational principle that no elected official, no legislative leader, and no partisan majority is above the Constitution. The people of House District 90 deserve full representation, and we intend to see that right restored."
Libby represents 9,000 constituents in Maine's 90th District and has not been able to speak or vote on their behalf in the state legislature for two months.
"This appeal is about far more than one legislator's seat – it's about defending the constitutional rights of 9,000 Mainers who currently have no voice and no vote in the Maine House of Representatives," Libby said.
"I'm grateful for the support of my constituents and so many others across Maine who understand the importance of speaking truth and standing firm. I will continue to press forward until the voices of the people I was elected to represent are heard once again in Augusta."
DuBose presided over the case after every district judge in Maine refused to take it.
Judges John C. Nivison, John A. Woodcock, Lance E. Walker, Karen F. Wolf, Stacey D. Neumann and Nancy Torresen signed recusal orders shortly after the case was initially filed. No reason was given.
So the case went to DuBose in Rhode Island.
The censure so far has cost her a chance to vote on the state's biannual budget and propose a bill to expand access to mental health resources for residents. It also prevents Libby from voting on or speaking on the House floor about a bill that would add trans inclusion in girls' sports to the state constitution.
Her colleagues will vote on the Democrat majority's bill after it passed with a slim simple majority in the House on Thursday, but it needs a two-thirds majority in both chambers before it can go before voters. If passed, it would codify in the state's constitution the Maine Human Rights Act, which protects the rights of transgender athletes to compete for sports teams of the opposite sex.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state for its ongoing defiance of Trump's Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports executive order. Maine has faced federal pressure in the last two months over its refusal to comply, including two federal investigations, a funding freeze by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and now a lawsuit.
The Democrat leadership in the state, led by Gov. Janet Mills, has fought back by filing its own lawsuit against Trump over the funding freeze. Another federal judge has already ruled the USDA must unfreeze the funding.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Atlantic

27 minutes ago

• Atlantic

Trump Got This One Right

'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.

Boston Globe

28 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans

The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Graham: Trump ‘had all the authority he needs under the Constitution' for Iran strikes

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a Sunday morning interview pushed back on claims that President Trump acted outside his Constitutional authority by ordering strikes on Iran. 'No, he was within his Article II authority,' Graham said in an interview on NBC News's 'Meet the Press,' when asked if Trump violated the U.S. Constitution by 'acting unilaterally.' 'Congress can declare war or cut off funding,' Graham continued. 'We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander in chiefs.' 'If you don't like what the president does, in terms of war, you can cut off the funding. But declaring war is left of the Congress. We've declared war five times in the history of America. All of these other military operations were lawful.' 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution. They are wrong,' he added, referring to critics who say Trump should have sought congressional approval before ordering strikes on the three Iranian nuclear sites this weekend. Trump announced Saturday the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, including the Fordow site located in a mountainside. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home,' Trump added. 'Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' The announcement of U.S. action against Iran came two days after the White House said Trump would decide whether to get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel 'in the next two weeks' to give a window for negotiations.