Federal appeals court justices pushed attorneys for Rep. Laurel Libby to explain Thursday why they should restore her right to vote and speak on the House Floor, privileges she lost in February after being censured for a viral social media post that identified a transgender high school athlete.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court last month ordered the House to restore her voting rights temporarily, Libby, who represents Auburn, remains prohibited from speaking during floor debates.

“Singling out one legislator to deny her ability to speak or vote for the duration of her term is the antithesis of a legislative act,” Taylor Meehan, a lawyer representing Libby, argued Thursday. “We are seeking the ability for her to be recognized in debate just like every other legislator is recognized.”

Thursday’s hearing before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston dealt with Libby’s lawsuit against House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, in which she seeks to overturn the censure and permanently restore her right to speak. Libby had previously requested a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court to reinstate those rights while the case proceeds, but the court denied the motion.

One appellate judge questioned whether voting and speaking should be treated the same under the law, pressing Meehan to explain why the speaking ban isn’t protected by legislative immunity, a legal principle that usually prevents courts from interfering in how legislatures manage their internal affairs. He noted the absence of historical precedent for such intervention and suggested that, unlike voting, a lawmaker’s ability to speak on the floor is typically viewed as more discretionary.

“How are we making these distinctions?,” the judge asked. “Once you get into, well, ‘Sometimes you can take the vote away and sometimes you can’t, it depends on what kind of speech the person engaged in,’ then you’re starting to make (judgments) that make at least me uncomfortable.”

One judge noted that it’s not uncommon for lawmakers to be silenced during debate for violating House rules. But Meehan pushed back, arguing that Libby’s punishment is unlike typical enforcement of House rules. While speakers can gavel down lawmakers in specific moments for breaking decorum, she said, Libby has been barred from speaking on any issue for the remainder of her term.

“Every other legislator can get up and explain their vote and make a floor speech, share the views of their constituents, and try to change the minds of their colleagues,” Meehan said. “We are just asking for the same equality.”

Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump-appointed U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, backed Libby’s challenge, arguing that stripping her voting rights was inappropriate because those votes belong to her constituents, not to her personally. The lawyer also said that while it may be reasonable to briefly silence a legislator during debate for a specific rule violation, indefinitely barring Libby from speaking was excessive and unprecedented.

In Congress and other state legislatures, disciplinary rules do not impose sanctions as severe as those applied to Libby, according to Dhillon, who’s team searched but found no similar example of punishment. Taking stances on controversial topics is a core part of a lawmaker’s role, she said, and punishing someone for doing so undermines the purpose of representative democracy.

“This is an extreme case, an arbitrary case, a case of unilateral disenfranchisement for speech that occurred outside the legislative boundaries,” Dhillon said, referring to Libby’s social media post. “I don’t think it’s frankly credible to argue that it is protected by legislative immunity.”

Libby’s post included photos of a high school athlete who had recently won a girls track state title after previously competing on the boys’ team. It also named the student’s school and placed the student’s first name in quotation marks. House Democrats argued the post violated the chamber’s code of ethics by exposing the student and the broader school community to potential harassment, intimidation and violence.

REFUSING TO APOLOGIZE

Under long-standing House rules, censured lawmakers are barred from speaking or voting on the floor unless they issue an apology, something Libby has refused to do. She contends that the punishment infringes on her right to free speech and effectively silences the voice of her district.

Jonathan Bolton, an assistant attorney general in Maine who represents Fecteau, said Libby is not challenging the censure itself but the enforcement of a rule that’s been in place since 1820. Once the House votes that a member has broken a rule, he said, that member must meet the terms of the resolution before regaining full privileges.

“This is not a private citizen that’s being asked to apologize,” said Bolton. “This is a member of a body.”

Bolton said lawmakers’ rights and responsibilities differ from those of ordinary citizens. While voting carries out the will of constituents, he argued, speaking on the floor is more discretionary, and restricting it is less constitutionally troubling.

He said there’s a long history of punishing members of the Legislature for what they say inside and outside of the courtroom, and warned that judicial intervention in how debate is managed would be a far greater intrusion on legislative immunity than restoring voting rights.

“When you’re a member of a legislative body, your rights and responsibilities are different than if you’re just an undifferentiated member of the public posting something in social media,” said Bolton. “You have a different responsibility and the First Amendment should treat you differently.”