Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, speaks during a news conference at the Maine State House in Augusta on March 4. Joe Phelan/Kennebec Journal

The Republican lawmaker who was censured for her Facebook post about a transgender student has filed a federal lawsuit against the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, arguing that Democrats in the Legislature violated her constitutional rights by barring her from voting or speaking on the House floor.

Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, and six of her constituents filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Bangor on Tuesday in response to Libby’s censure by the Legislature last month. Democrats argued Libby crossed a line by including photos of a transgender high school athlete as part of her criticism of Maine’s policy of allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls sports.

Libby said in a news release Tuesday that House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, violated her First and 14th Amendment rights with the censure. The censure means Libby cannot vote or speak on the House floor unless she apologizes for the post — something she has said she does not plan to do.

“I have the constitutional right to speak out and my constituents have the right to full representation in the Maine House,” Libby said in the release. “Biological males have no place in girls’ sports. Our girls have every right, under federal law, to fair competition in sports. We will not let them be erased by the Democratic majority advancing a woke progressive agenda.”

A spokesperson for Fecteau declined to comment on the case and referred questions to the Office of the Maine Attorney General. A spokesperson for the office said they do not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit seeks to have Libby’s voting and speaking privileges restored, and she is asking for coverage of her attorney’s fees and “any other legal or equitable relief” the court may deem appropriate. Libby is also asking for injunctive relief allowing her to vote and speak on the floor while the final outcome of the case is being decided.

The lawsuit reiterates many of the statements Libby has made previously on the issue, including that the photos of the student were already available publicly elsewhere and her argument that she is being punished for standing up for girls’ sports.

“The proffered reasons for censuring Rep. Libby — minor students’ privacy and safety concerns — are false and a sham to cover the unlawful motive to retaliate against her because of her speech about men and boys who identify as transgender participating women’s and girls’ sports, her criticisms of Maine’s transgender sports policy, and the national media attention she attracted,” it states.

Libby and other Maine Republicans have referred to transgender girls and women as boys or men, or sometimes as “biological boys,” in keeping with a Trump executive order proclaiming there are only two genders — a position contradicted by the American Medical Association and other medical groups.

The suit says the censure violates Libby’s First Amendment right to free speech and other constitutional protections, including the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment, by taking representation away from Libby’s constituents.

“Barring Rep. Libby from speaking or voting on the House floor dilutes plaintiffs’ 2024 election votes in violation of the Equal Protection Clause’s ‘one person, one vote’ principle,” the suit says.

Four federal judges have filed paperwork to recuse themselves from the case, though the reasons why are not included in their filings.

Dmitry Bam, a professor of law at the University of Maine School of Law, said Tuesday that Libby appears to have a “pretty good claim” under the First Amendment with her suit.

There is not a lot of case law about how the First Amendment applies to lawmakers outside of legislative debates, where free speech is almost always protected, Bam said.

In other cases, Bam said there are exceptions to what is protected, such as speech that is defamatory or includes an imminent threat of violence. He said it isn’t clear that the photos Libby used would fall under any exception.

Bam said it’s also not exactly clear if the First Amendment would apply differently to Libby because she is a lawmaker as opposed to any other citizen.

Free speech protections for government employees are slightly less than what they are for the average citizen, Bam said, as courts usually balance the speaker’s right with the employer’s right to have an efficient and smooth-running workplace.

But Bam said the Supreme Court has not directly applied that balancing test to elected officials and there is some controversy in legal literature as to whether its application is appropriate in that context.

In one potentially applicable U.S. Supreme Court case, Bond v. Floyd, the court ruled in favor of a newly elected Georgia lawmaker whom the Georgia House of Representatives tried to bar from taking his seat because of statements about the Vietnam War.

And in another case, Powell v. McCormick, a representative was excluded from the U.S. House of Representatives because of alleged ethics violations. The court ruled in his favor for a somewhat technical constitutional reason, but also mentioned that excluding Powell nullified the choice of his voters, Bam said.

Both cases seem to support Libby’s First Amendment and right-to-vote claims, he said.

Libby’s censure was approved 75-70 along party lines last month after Democrats argued it was inappropriate for a lawmaker to use photos of a minor in a political post without their consent and raised concerns that the post targeted the student for harassment.

Several Republicans defended Libby’s actions as free speech and said they worried about the precedent it would set to censure a lawmaker for a social media post.

Libby is just the fourth Maine lawmaker to be censured by the Legislature, according to legislative records dating to 1820.

Last year, Rep. Michael Lemelin, R-Chelsea, and Rep. Shelley Rudnicki, R-Fairfield, were censured for saying during a House floor debate that the 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston and recent storms were God’s punishment for lawmakers expanding abortion access and other “immoral” laws passed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature. Both lawmakers immediately apologized after the censure and never tested the punishment in court.