Federal Appeals Court: Maine Christian Schools Must Follow Gender, Sexuality Rules to Receive Public Funds

League of Christian Schools ^ | July 16, 2026 | Michael Burroughs

[fwdude]

A federal appeals court has ruled that Maine may exclude Christian schools from public funding if they refuse to comply with the state’s gender- and sexuality-related nondiscrimination laws, Catholic World Report reports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on July 2 denied an injunction sought by St. Dominic Academy in the Diocese of Portland, which had objected to requirements that it facilitate student “gender transitions” and compel staff to use opposite-sex pronouns. A similar suit by Bangor’s Crosspoint Church, which runs a K–12 Christian school, was partly combined into the ruling.

The court held that “combatting sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination” is a “legitimate governmental pursuit” and that conditioning public funds on compliance “rationally relates” to that goal.

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: gaypredators; groomers; grooming; homosexualagenda; predators

[fwdude]

Disgusting. So, a Christian school must jettison ALL of their doctrine in order to comply with receiving funds.

Reminder: Public funds are monies extracted from Christians, too. They have a right to that money as much as everyone else, without having to jump through perverted hoops.

[fwdude]

Keep in mind that in many leftist enclaves, these requirements are foisted on private Christian institutions even without public funding.

[kawhill]

The court held that “combatting sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination” is a “legitimate governmental pursuit” and that conditioning public funds on compliance “rationally relates” to that goal. “legitimate governmental pursuit”. Shouldn’t be for a judge.

[sit-rep]

Retards... the lot of them!!

[BenLurkin]

“combatting sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination” is a “legitimate governmental pursuit”

IOW: Government is forcing perversion on the entire population. It is NOT a legitimate government pursuit.

[Carry_Okie]

The State is entitled to do this. And the State can suffer the consequences as families leave.

This is how Natural Law Federalism works. Yes, it can suck, but it’s a way of making laws self enforcing without a billion rules.

[Retain Mike]

“combatting sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination”

Public funds for education become dependent upon ideological markers such as “sex assigned at birth” and “gender affirming treatments”. According to one idea a child comes out of the womb as a hermaphrodite creature and the attending physician must make a confused determination of sex using an undefined set of factors. The sexual determination made is only preliminary, and as a social construct, is subject to refinement into a variety of genders as the child matures. Subsequent efforts to help people live according to their self-evident anatomy is called “conversion therapy” and is considered bad. However, indoctrination often followed by brutal chemical treatments and/or surgical actions designed to destroy the person’s natural sexual identity is called “gender affirming care” and is good.

[Blurb2350]

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

“Government is forcing perversion on the entire population. It is NOT a legitimate government pursuit.”

+100!

Hasn’t SCOTUS already ruled on things like this?

[Chickensoup]

All must leave public ed.

[libstripper]

Wonderful, accurate summary.

[fwdude]

The State is entitled to do this. And the State can suffer the consequences as families leave.

This is a tragic case when there are multi-generational families in the state with deep roots. They enjoyed the state when it was sane, and must now pay the price when it was ripped out from under them.

Don't ever let a homo-Nazi get away with telling you that what they do "doesn't affect anyone else." The examples could fill a small library.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

This will land at SCOTUS. But what a tangled web...

Carson v. Makin (2022) is the main relevant SCOTUS decision, but it does not fully resolve this issue.

The First Circuit’s July 2, 2026 ruling in St. Dominic Academy v. Makin (and the companion Crosspoint Church case) addresses a distinct question that Carson left open. In Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that Maine’s tuition assistance program (which helps students in districts without public secondary schools attend private schools) violated the Free Exercise Clause by excluding “sectarian”/religious schools from an otherwise generally available public benefit. Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion made clear that once a state decides to subsidize private education this way, it cannot disqualify schools solely because of their religious character or because the funds would be used for religious instruction/exercise. The Court rejected any status-vs.-use distinction that would have allowed exclusion based on religious use of the funds. Carson did not hold that religious schools are entitled to public funds while remaining free of neutral, generally applicable conditions that apply to all participating private schools. The Maine schools at issue in Carson had policies reflecting their religious views on sexuality and gender (refusing to hire or admit based on those), but the Court’s ruling focused on the religious-exclusion rule itself, not on whether the state could later condition participation on compliance with nondiscrimination laws.

What the First Circuit decided

After Carson, Maine applied (or continued applying) provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act to schools receiving the tuition assistance. These include rules against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI)—covering admissions, facilitation of gender transitions, preferred pronouns, dress consistent with gender identity, etc.—as well as certain religious nondiscrimination and expression rules. St. Dominic Academy (Catholic, Diocese of Portland) and Bangor Christian Schools (run by Crosspoint Church) sought injunctions, arguing these conditions violated Free Exercise (and related claims) by forcing them to act against their religious beliefs or effectively excluding them. The First Circuit largely upheld the district court’s denial of relief on the SOGI and religious nondiscrimination rules:

• It treated the SOGI nondiscrimination requirements as neutral and generally applicable (applying to all private schools in the program, religious or not).
• Under Employment Division v. Smith (1990), such laws receive rational-basis review rather than strict scrutiny.
• Combating SOGI discrimination is a legitimate governmental interest, and conditioning public funds on compliance “rationally relates” to that goal.
• The court distinguished pure status/use discrimination barred by Carson/Espinoza/Trinity Lutheran from neutral conditions on the use of public funds. It viewed the rules as regulating discriminatory conduct rather than compelling speech or targeting religion as such, while still allowing schools to teach their religious views on marriage, sex, and gender.

The panel (opinion by Judge Kayatta) did reverse in part on the “Religious Expression Rule” (requiring parity in allowing religious expression if any is permitted), finding it non-neutral and likely unconstitutional as applied; it ordered a preliminary injunction against that specific provision. Employment-rule challenges largely failed for lack of standing or because of existing carve-outs.

Why this is not a direct conflict with prior SCOTUS rulings

• Carson, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and Trinity Lutheran (2017) prohibit excluding religious entities from generally available benefits because they are religious. They do not automatically invalidate neutral conditions that apply equally to secular and religious participants (e.g., health/safety, curriculum standards, or nondiscrimination rules that are not pretexts for religious targeting).
• Cases like Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) involved systems with discretionary exemptions that triggered stricter scrutiny; the First Circuit viewed Maine’s rules as more generally applicable.
• Other recent SCOTUS decisions (e.g., 303 Creative on compelled speech for wedding websites, parental opt-out rights in Mahmoud v. Taylor regarding LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum in public schools, or limits on certain gender-medicine laws) protect free speech, parental rights, or free exercise in different contexts. They do not hold that accepting public education funds creates an unlimited right to discriminate in admissions/operations contrary to neutral state nondiscrimination conditions.

A related case involving Colorado’s preschool funding and religious providers’ ability to exclude children of same-sex couples is noted as heading to (or before) the Supreme Court and could clarify the post-Carson line on funding conditions. Lower-court applications of Carson continue to develop distinctions between prohibited religious exclusions and permissible neutral conditions. In short, Carson opened the door for religious schools to participate in Maine’s program; the First Circuit held that participation can still come with the same SOGI nondiscrimination obligations imposed on other private schools receiving the funds. The schools may seek further review. The outcome turns on the neutral/generally applicable vs. targeted distinction that remains central in free-exercise doctrine after Smith and the recent funding cases.

---

It is possible this will go to SCOTUS and the schools have signaled interest, but as of early August 2026 no petition for certiorari has been filed with the Supreme Court.

The First Circuit issued its opinions in St. Dominic Academy v. Makin and the companion Crosspoint Church v. Makin on July 2, 2026, affirming in large part the denial of relief on the key sexual-orientation and gender-identity nondiscrimination conditions while reversing on the Religious Expression Rule and remanding. The mandate issued shortly afterward (around July 24 for the St. Dominic matter).

Counsel for the schools have publicly indicated they are evaluating or intend to seek further review. Crosspoint Church’s representatives stated shortly after the ruling that they intend to appeal and that “an appeal to the Supreme Court may become necessary.” Becket (representing St. Dominic interests) and others have similarly left the door open to a cert petition while noting a related case already on the Court’s docket.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is typically due within 90 days of the court of appeals judgment (or later if an extension is granted). That window remains open into the fall of 2026. Whether the Court would grant review is uncertain; it already has a similar pending case involving Colorado preschool funding and religious providers’ nondiscrimination obligations that is expected to be heard this fall and could influence or partially overlap with the issues here.

In short, the path to the Supreme Court is available and the losing parties appear inclined to pursue it, but nothing has been docketed yet.

[Carry_Okie]

Don't ever let a homo-Nazi get away with telling you that what they do "doesn't affect anyone else." The examples could fill a small library.

Precisely. That we let the schools sell it is our fault.

[Flaming Conservative]

Bullies! However, it is my opinion that Christian schools shouldn’t be requesting federal funds to begin with; the attached strings are often anti-Christian.

[fwdude]

...Christian schools shouldn’t be requesting federal funds to begin with...

Perhaps not, but this also applies to any STUDENT INITIATED requests for tuition help, removed from any decisions of the Christian school.

This is why students at Hillsdale College are not even allowed to apply for federal grants or other government subsidies (federal student loans, etc.) to help them pay for their education. Hillsdale wants no connections to the federal government, but it's the students who suffer.

[wardaddy]

Politics over jurisprudence
Disgusting
If they follow the constitution and it isn’t what I’d prefer I just suck it up

[PGR88]

Don’t take the state’s money.

Education is not difficult. It’s not about money. It’s about ethos and commitment.

Our local urban public school system spends nearly $25K per student, yet its students are failing badly.

On the other hand, I’ve met homeschool groups of parents who share teaching, and their only expense is time, paper, pencils and sometimes gasoline to take kids to lessons

And these kids often wound up at top universities.

[aquila48]

Good synopsis, which begs the question - how and why has such insanity been allowed to grow and fester by the majority of us normals?

[John Leland 1789]

“Come shekels, come shackles.”