Court rules on Crosspoint Church's challenge to Maine law

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving Crosspoint Church and its challenge to certain provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). The court's decision affects religious schools in Maine, particularly those that seek public funding while adhering to specific religious beliefs. The ruling is crucial as it addresses the balance between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedoms.

The case, Crosspoint Church v. Makin, was filed under docket number 24-1590. It centers on Crosspoint Church's Bangor Christian School (BCS), which claims that certain rules within the MHRA violate its First Amendment rights. The court's decision comes on the heels of a similar case, St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, which dealt with comparable issues regarding religious schools and public funding.

Background

Crosspoint Church is an independent Christian church that operates Bangor Christian School, a private K-12 institution. The school follows a Statement of Faith that emphasizes Christian teachings and values. BCS requires students and their families to support its religious philosophy and adheres to strict codes of conduct regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

The dispute arose when Crosspoint Church sought to participate in Maine's tuition-assistance program, which allows students to attend private schools at public expense. However, the MHRA includes provisions that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which BCS's policies seem to conflict with. Crosspoint Church argues that these provisions infringe on its religious freedoms.

The case reached the First Circuit after the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine denied Crosspoint's request for a permanent injunction against the enforcement of these rules. Instead of appealing the denial of a preliminary injunction, Crosspoint opted to have the court's decision converted into a permanent injunction denial, allowing for an appeal on the merits.

The Ruling

The First Circuit Court ruled on July 2, 2026, affirming in part and reversing in part the district court's order. The court upheld the district court's decision regarding the Employment Rule, stating that no case or controversy exists concerning it. However, the court found that the Religious Expression Rule unconstitutionally violates Crosspoint's free-exercise rights and ordered the district court to enjoin that rule as applied to Crosspoint.

The court stated, "We hold that the Religious Expression Rule unconstitutionally violates Crosspoint's free-exercise rights, and so we remand for the district court to enjoin that rule as applied to Crosspoint."

Furthermore, the court addressed Crosspoint's challenges to the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule and the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule. It concluded that these rules do not violate Crosspoint's constitutional rights, as they do not prohibit the school's religious teachings or practices. The ruling emphasized that the MHRA's provisions regulate conduct rather than speech.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for religious schools in Maine and potentially beyond. It clarifies the boundaries of religious freedom in the context of anti-discrimination laws. Schools like BCS that seek public funding must navigate the complexities of adhering to both their religious beliefs and state laws that prohibit discrimination.

The court's decision reinforces the notion that while religious organizations have rights under the First Amendment, they must also comply with state laws aimed at preventing discrimination. This balance is crucial in ensuring that all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, have access to education without facing discrimination.

What's Next

The ruling can potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court, especially given the ongoing national discussions around religious freedoms and anti-discrimination laws. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that further explore the intersection of religious rights and public funding in education.