Institute For Free Speech

Free Speech Arguments

Presented by the Institute for Free Speech

The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country. Find us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Episode 31: Libby v. Fecteau

Libby, et al. v. Fecteau, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, and District Judge Camille Vélez-Rivé in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on June 5, 2025. Argued by Taylor Meehan of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC (on behalf of Laurel Libby, et al.), Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (for Amicus Curiae United States, supporting appellant), and Jonathan Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of Ryan M. Fecteau, et al.).

Background of the case, from the Brief of Appellants:

There were 151 voting members in the Maine House of Representatives when the legislative session began. Now there are only 150. In late February, the House Speaker silenced District 90’s representative and the Clerk stopped counting District 90’s votes—all because of something said on Facebook.
…

In February, Libby took to Facebook to call attention to Maine’s [transgender athlete] policy, borne out at this year’s high school track-and-field state championship. The championship was a public event; the names, schools, and podium photos of participants were widely broadcast and readily accessible online. Libby re-posted already-public, truthful information showing the first-place girls’ pole vaulter previously competed in boys’ pole vault. That first-place finish propelled the athlete’s high school team to win the girls’ state championship by one point.

Libby’s post put Maine’s policy in the national spotlight, prompting federal investigations regarding Maine’s noncompliance with federal law. Days later, the Maine House censured Libby along a party-line vote of 75 to 70. The censure resolution called on Libby to “publicly apologize” for bringing “national attention” to Maine. H.R. Res. 1, 132nd Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Me. 2025). It denounced Libby’s “statement criticizing the participation of transgender students in high school sports” as “reprehensible” and “incompatible with her duty and responsibilities as a Member of this House.” And while the resolution faulted Libby for identifying a “student athlete by [first] name” and “showing the minor in an athletic uniform” without “consent,” id., the post merely copied public information, showing podium photos from widely publicized state championship events, contained no threats, and violated no law. The resolution omitted that the Speaker and others regularly show minors on their social media, without any indication of consent from the subjects.

Dissenting House members criticized the resolution as “a mockery of the censure process,” “set[ting] a standard … that the majority party, when they’re displeased with a social media post that upsets them, can censure a member of the minority party.” Other representatives raised free-speech concerns and sought clarification on whether members who re-posted Libby’s post could “expect censures to come forth on them as well.” The Speaker disclaimed knowledge of “any other censures.”

After the censure resolution passed, the Speaker summoned Libby to the well of the House chamber and demanded she apologize. When Libby refused to recant her views, the Speaker found her in violation of Maine House Rule 401(11), providing that a member “guilty of a breach of any of the rules and orders of the House … may not be allowed to vote or speak … until the member has made satisfaction.”

Ever since, Libby’s district has had no voice or vote on the House floor. The Speaker has stopped Libby from speaking on any bill, including even posing a question in a recent debate on an equal rights amendment proposed for the state constitution.

Statement of the Issue, from the Brief of Appellants:

Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction on their claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Guarantee Clause [of “a Republican Form of Government].”

Resources:

Listen to the argument here:

 

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform.

Episode 30: Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 29: Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 28: Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, argued before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on April 17, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 27: Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. Edelblut, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 25: Powell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 24: Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 15, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 23: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 22: TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 10, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 21: Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, consolidated under AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on October 30, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 20: Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al. v. Wilson County Board of Education, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 29, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 19: Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 9, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 18: Little, et al. v. Llano County, et al., argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 24, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 17: TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 16, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 16: NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 17, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 15: X Corp. v. Bonta, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 17, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 14: The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 4, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 13: Can You Be Punished for Sharing Publicly Broadcast Court Hearings (Somberg v. McDonald), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 12, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 12: Florida’s STOP Woke Act in Higher Education (Pernell v. Lamb), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on June 14, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 11: National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc on June 12, 2024. 
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 10: U.S. v. Sittenfeld, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2024
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 9: Diei v. Boyd, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 2, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 8: Spectrum WT v. Wendler, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 29, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 7: Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 16, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 6: U.S. v. Mackey, argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 5, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 5: Gilliam v. Gerregano, argued before the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 3, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 4: Gonzalez v. Trevino, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 20, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 3: Murthy v. Missouri, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 2: NRA v. Vullo, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 1: Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024
Listen to the argument here:  

Get the Latest Updates

© 2025 Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-301-3300

The word mark Institute for Free Speech® and its logo of a stylized lantern with a flame are federally registered service marks and are owned by the Institute for Free Speech.