Washington - Supreme Court Tuesday Now restored Maine legislators She voted in the state House after being punished for identifying social media posts by trans student athletes.

The High Court approved the emergency relief request sought by Laurel Libby, who represented the House District 90, and her colleagues condemned social media posts in a position that criticized the state for allowing transgender athletes in public high schools to participate in women's sports. Libby's online post called a trans athlete who competed in the state's track and field championship.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to approve the injunction.

Libby shared February punishment for Facebook, which included photos and the athlete's name, who ranked her in a women's pole vault. Maine allows transgender students to participate in track and field based on gender identity. The Justice Department has sued the state's Department of Education for its policy, which the Trump administration says violates Chapter IX. The lawsuit was filed after President Trump Signed an executive order In February, trans girls and women were banned from participating in sports teams that match their gender identity.

In response to Libby’s social media post, the Maine House voted for her. The resolution noted that after warning her that she might endanger the athlete, Libby refused to delete her position and said: "This is the basic tenet of politics and good moral character that adult politicians should not target children, especially when the target can cause serious harm."

The condemnation measure directed Liby to “take full responsibility for the incident and publicly apologize to the House and the people of Maine.” It concluded that Liby “must be compatible in a way that pursues the highest standards of legislative conduct.

After the resolution was approved by the state legislature, Libby was taken to the well in the conference hall and directed an apology. When she refused to do so, the House Speaker found that she had violated the centuries-old Maine House rules, which violated a member who violated the rules of the corpse and was unable to participate in a debate or vote until the members were "satisfied."

Libby and her six voters sued in federal court to restore her voting rights in Maine's House. The federal district court refused to provide them with preliminary relief, and the appeals court of the U.S. First Circuit rejected the request for intervention.

Libby said her voters were not equally represented in the chamber when seeking emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The punishment leaves them “without a say or vote for every bill in the House of Representatives, the remaining term of office that is elected.” Libby was first elected to the state legislature in 2020, and her current term continues until 2026.

But Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey argued that Libby is seeking Supreme Court intervention in a “domestic dispute” that, if granted, would be legislative immunity to core legislative actions.

“Since ancient times, the power of the legislature to punish its members has been recognized in the common law and in the U.S. Constitution and in the constitution of many states, including Maine, including the Constitution of Maine,” he wrote. “Equally, determining whether a measure succeeds or fails is an act of a comprehensive act carried out in the legislative process. The injunction that guides how such a process will run counter to the policy that insulates legislative activities from “external interference,” which makes the Court’s immunity ruling involve immunity from that court.”

Jackson criticized the Supreme Court for criticizing Libby's emergency relief decision in the litigation process and said it has been too fast in recent years.

"For me, the standard that gives court standards is an unfortunate development," Jackson wrote, adding that the way the Supreme Court handles emergency appeals - swift without comprehensive briefings and oral debates - is "almost not a model of reasonable decision-making."

She continued: “At the very least, by lowering the standards for restricting emergency relief, the court itself will be held responsible for the resulting systemic disruption, as our surge in demands for our “extraordinary” interventions (in the early and early stages of lower court litigation) and increasingly frequent – ​​no doubt will follow.”