The Supreme Court has stalled an attempt by liberal lawmakers to disenfranchise a conservative Christian colleague who spoke out against male athletes competing in girls’ sports, a ruling she said displayed “an outpouring of God’s grace … and faithfulness.”

The Supreme Court granted an injunction suspending the censure of Maine State Rep. Laurel Libby (R-90) over a social media post opposing transgender ideology in a 7-2 vote on Tuesday. Democrats in the Maine House of Representatives barred Libby from voting or speaking, alleging that her post may endanger the life of a minor depicted in a social media post — but critics say they simply sought to punish Libby’s faith- and science-based view of biology. The order allows Libby to return to representing the 9,000 constituents in her district by casting votes as the appeals process plays out in the lower court. However, should a lower court rule against her, the injunction will expire, and the censure will resume.

“The U.S. Supreme Court just restored the voice of 9,000 Mainers!” wrote Libby in a social media post shortly after the court order. “This is a win for free speech — and for the Constitution.” Likewise, Riley Gaines, a former University of Kentucky female swimming champion whom college officials compelled to change in front of and compete against a male athlete, called the high court’s injunction “a win for free speech and for girls everywhere.”

The restoration is not yet complete. “I still am not able to speak, but I can vote,” Libby told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on Thursday afternoon.

Libby, who is a believer, gave glory to God for every trial and triumph since Maine’s Democrats stripped her of the right to vote or give speeches on the floor. “I certainly have seen an outpouring of God’s grace over the last few months, and faithfulness. At times, it has not been easy, but He has been faithful. And we’ve seen that every day,” Libby told Perkins. “It’s been a hard but blessed three months.”

Shortly before the show, Libby shared a screenshot of her first recorded roll call vote since her February 25 censure on a 75-70, party-line vote.

Democrats targeted Libby after she shared the picture of a young man who identifies as a female winning a girls’ championship in track and field. “John tied for 5th place in boys pole vault. Tonight, ‘Katie’ won 1st place in the girls’ Maine State Class B Championship,” noted Libby, accurately, in a February 17 Facebook post. Maine Democrats, led by House Speaker Ryan Fecteau (D), pounced, claiming that by sharing the image, school, and first (but not last) name of the trans-identifying athlete, Libby had subjected the boy to death threats.

Libby noted his name and image had already been made public. And free speech advocates pointed out that lawmakers took no punitive action when liberal State Rep. Vicki Doudera (D-41) shared the name and photo of an underage chess champion online.

Libby filed suit against Fecteau and House of Representatives clerk Robert Hunt, arguing they violated her First and Fourteenth Amendments. “I do not believe that that is constitutional,” Libby told “Washington Watch” in March.

Throughout the case, she refused to issue a pro forma apology for expressing her deeply held views. “There were multiple reasons that I did not back down and apologize,” Libby told Perkins. “If you’re speaking the truth and can be bullied into backing down or apologizing for speaking the truth, I think it sets a really terrible example to the next generation, these women and girls who are watching. ... I think that we need to set the standard, and that is to speak up for truth and not back down.”

U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose of Rhode Island, a Biden appointee, turned down Libby’s request to restore her voting rights on April 18 after forbidding the hearings from being recorded. DuBose wrote that Libby’s disenfranchisement “reflected the will of the majority” and stated, although Libby cannot speak or vote, she would continue to enjoy such perks as “legislative staff,” “offices,” and “meal allowances.”

Libby then appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals — which oversees Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico — and is one of the nation’s most liberal courts. All five Article III judges are Democratic appointees. The First Circuit denied an emergency motion to speed up the appeals process on April 25, saying she “failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success.”

Libby added the issues at the heart of her case, “the Constitution, my constituents constitutional right to representation, my right to free speech — these are core to our democracy.” Denying those by majority vote in an overtly partisan forum is “an incredibly slippery slope and a terrible precedent to set, not just in Maine but across the country, if this were allowed to stand.”

Her views are shared by a coalition of 15 state attorneys general, who filed an amicus brief on Libby’s behalf, led by West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey (R) and joined by Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Kris Kobach of Kansas, Jason Miyares of Virginia, Liz Murrill of Louisiana, and Dave Yost of Ohio, among others. They wrote Fecteau’s actions “directly attack the legislative function.” (Emphasis in original.)

In Tuesday’s vote, Justice Elena Kagan joined the court’s conservative bloc, while Sonia Sotomayor denied the petition, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson wrote a five-page dissent. Jackson said denying Libby a right to vote should stand, because the Republican has “not asserted that there are any significant legislative votes scheduled in the upcoming weeks; that there are any upcoming votes in which Libby’s participation would impact the outcome; or that they will otherwise suffer any concrete, imminent, and significant harm while the lower court considers this matter.” The liberal justice longed for the days when the Chief Justice John Roberts would convince the justices to avoid issues and hand down narrow rulings, avoiding the central constitutional issues of many cases completely. “Those days are no more,” she wrote. “Today’s Court ... opts instead to dole out error correction as it sees fit.”

Yet the startling terms of Maine’s censure shocked some distinctly hostile media outlets. “A censure is one thing when it’s just a symbolic statement of disapproval. But preventing an elected representative from voting should be a last resort for very serious misbehavior, and no legislature should make that decision lightly,” opined the editors of the reliably liberal Boston Globe in a March editorial. “Representative Al Green, the Texas Democrat who heckled President Trump at the State of the Union address, was recently censured for violating the decorum of the House. Imagine how Democrats would react if the House Republican leadership tried to prevent him from voting, too.”

The editors noted the Maine legislature’s ethics statute contains “broad language [that] can too easily be used to justify punishing a lawmaker in the minority party for saying almost anything that the majority party dislikes, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment.”

Disciplinary actions in the Maine legislature have had a distinctly partisan flavor in recent years. Three of the four censures issued in the history of Maine’s House of Representatives have occurred in the last year: In addition to Libby, the chamber’s Democrats punished two Christian conservatives for saying God opposes abortion on the House floor. Yet Democrats adopted the censure resolution banning Libby from voting or speaking until she is willing to “accept full responsibility for the incident and publicly apologize to the House and to the people of the State of Maine.”

Libby’s right to speak on the floor in her full capacity is still pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals; her case is scheduled to be heard on June 5.

Libby noted standing in the eye of a public storm over a highly sensitive issue about the reality of biological sex has impacted her own family, including her children, forcing her to discuss sensitive biological matters far earlier than she believed necessary. “We’ve had some conversations I never anticipated, given that my kids are still growing up,” Libby told Perkins. She noted Fecteau had not apologized after the justices’ procedural rebuke, adding, “I don’t expect an apology. I wouldn’t expect an apology, because I don’t think it would be truthful.”

Yet, she said, she would not change a thing. “A lot of folks have asked me if I would do anything differently, and I really can’t say that I would. I think so much has come to light here in Maine with how Maine women and girls are being discriminated against and the tyranny going on in Augusta, pushing an agenda that Maine people do not agree with,” she told Perkins.

A poll taken late last month found 52% of likely Maine voters believe Maine should obey President Trump’s executive order enforcing Title IX protections to keep men out of women’s sports, and a whopping 68% oppose counselors promoting transgender ideology to children or refusing to tell parents if children identify as another gender at school. That confirms a University of New Hampshire poll taken in March that found 64% of Maine residents oppose male athletes competing against girls.

“I’m thankful that so much has come to light as a result” of the censure resolution, Libby said. “And I think it’s worth anything that has happened.”

Perkins personally praised Libby’s unwavering stance on behalf of biological reality and God’s created order, in spite of significant pressures to recant her views. “I do want to commend you for your courage in standing up,” Perkins told Libby. “You have set a sterling example of doing it in a gracious way, but in a firm, unyielding way. Truth is truth, and we need to stand upon it.”