Background
Crosspoint Church operates Bangor Christian School (BCS), a private K–12 school operating under a Statement of Faith asserting Christian doctrine. BCS’s policies reflect its religious mission: admissions consider families’ willingness to support Christian education; the code of conduct prohibits sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage and identifies students presenting as a gender different from their biological sex; employment requires staff to be co-religionists adhering to biblical standards of conduct. BCS sought to participate in Maine’s tuition-assistance program, which allows students in school administrative units without public schools to attend private schools at public expense.
Maine’s Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibits educational discrimination based on protected characteristics—including religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity—at schools receiving public funding. The MHRA was amended in June 2021 to add religion as a protected category in education and to narrow an exemption for religious schools on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, applying the exemption only to schools not receiving public funding. Crosspoint challenged four MHRA provisions on First Amendment grounds, arguing they violated free exercise and free speech rights.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The panel (Judges Kayatta and Montecalvo) held that the Employment Rule presents no justiciable case or controversy because its carveouts already permit religious organizations to require co-religionists and enforce religious conduct standards. As to the Religious Expression Rule—which prohibits schools from discriminating between religions when permitting religious expression—the court found it unconstitutional as applied to Crosspoint, violating free-exercise rights, and remanded for the district court to enjoin that rule.
However, the court upheld the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule and the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule. On the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule, the court held that requiring families to support the school’s Christian education philosophy constitutes a permissible mission-oriented admissions practice, not religious discrimination. On the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule, the court rejected Crosspoint’s claims that the amendments targeted BCS with anti-religious animus and that the rule compels speech. The court found the amendments rationally structured—aligned with how Maine treats religion in employment and housing—and determined the rule regulates conduct (admission and service decisions), not speech. The school remains free to teach its faith and cannot be forced to “affirm” students’ sexual orientations or gender identities; it simply cannot exclude students based on those characteristics.
Key Takeaways
- Religious schools accepting public funding must comply with sexual orientation and gender identity antidiscrimination rules, even when those policies conflict with the school’s theology.
- Antidiscrimination laws regulating conduct permissibly restrict associated speech; schools can teach their religious beliefs while complying with nondiscrimination requirements.
- Post-enactment statements by elected officials or academics do not establish legislative animus sufficient to invalidate a statute under strict scrutiny; courts eschew speculation about legislators’ motivations.
- The Religious Expression Rule—which prevents schools from discriminating between religions in permitting religious expression—is enjoined as a free-exercise violation.
- Mission-oriented admissions policies requiring alignment with a school’s religious philosophy do not violate the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundaries of religious school exemptions in public funding regimes post-Carson v. Makin. While the Supreme Court held in Carson (2022) that Maine could not categorically exclude religious schools from tuition assistance, this ruling establishes that religious schools accepting public funds must comply with sexual orientation and gender identity antidiscrimination requirements. The decision rejects the theory that such requirements constitute hostility to religion or impermissible compulsion of speech. It permits schools to maintain religious identity through doctrinal instruction and selective hiring while barring them from using protected-class status as an admissions or service criterion.
The enforcement of the Religious Expression Rule is enjoined, implying schools may restrict expression that contradicts their teachings. The ruling also illustrates the First Circuit’s approach to legislative motive: animus claims based on individual legislators’ or officials’ statements will not survive scrutiny absent evidence of coordinated targeting. For religious organizations and civil rights advocates alike, the decision delineates where accommodation of faith ends and antidiscrimination obligations begin in publicly funded educational settings.