Appeals Court Affirms Maine’s Anti‑Discrimination Requirements for Faith‑Based Schools

The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decisive ruling on July 6, 2026, confirming that two religious schools—St. Dominic Academy in Auburn and the Bangor Christian School operated by Crosspoint Church—cannot receive public tuition assistance if they violate Maine’s anti‑discrimination statutes. The decision came after the schools challenged the state’s Human Rights Act, arguing that its provisions infringed on their free‑exercise rights.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that the law’s requirements to nondiscriminately admit students and employ staff are consistent with constitutional protections. Both schools had indicated they would likely refuse admission to openly gay students or those identifying with a gender different from their birth certificate, and they would potentially expel such students. The court noted that accepting public funds obligates schools to follow state‑wide nondiscrimination rules, including those covering sexual orientation and gender identity.

Judges Lara Montecalvo and William Kayatta, writing for the panel, stressed that the Human Rights Act does not compel schools to endorse specific religious teachings. It merely prevents discriminatory practices in hiring and admissions while allowing schools to teach their faith‑based curricula. This balance preserves both the free‑exercise of religion and the state’s compelling interest in protecting civil rights.

While the majority opinion upheld the district court’s decision, the judges sent a narrower issue back for further consideration. They remanded the portion of the case concerning the “Religious Expression Rule,” which requires schools that allow religious expression to do so without favoring one faith over another. The lower court will now address whether this rule would force a school like St. Dominic to permit non‑Catholic religious activities, potentially conflicting with its Catholic mission.

Legal advocates on both sides responded strongly. The First Liberty Institute, representing the schools, argued that the decision undermines the full promise of the First Amendment. In contrast, the Maine branch of the American Civil Liberties Union celebrated the ruling as a vital defense of hard‑won anti‑discrimination protections. The decision also aligns with a broader national trend of courts upholding state anti‑discrimination laws even when applied to religiously affiliated institutions that accept public money.

For schools wishing to participate in Maine’s tuition‑assistance program, the ruling makes clear that compliance with the Human Rights Act is mandatory. Schools must adopt nondiscriminatory policies regarding gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion while retaining the freedom to deliver religious instruction. This outcome reinforces the principle that public funding carries obligations to uphold equality and civil rights.

In summary, the appeals court’s affirmation safeguards Maine’s commitment to inclusive education. It confirms that religious schools can continue to teach their faith traditions but must do so without discriminating against students or employees based on protected characteristics. The remand on the Religious Expression Rule promises further clarification, ensuring that religious liberty and anti‑discrimination principles coexist within the state’s public‑funding framework.