1st Circuit: Maine can require anti-discrimination for religious schools
Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.
On July 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a mixed ruling in St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, a dispute about whether Maine can require religious K–12 schools to follow the state’s anti-discrimination rules when they participate in Maine’s tuition-assistance program.
The court did not grant a broad preliminary injunction for most of the challenged rules. But it reversed the lower court on one key provision tied to how schools are allowed to handle religious “expression,” and sent that issue back for further proceedings.
What the case is about
Maine’s tuition-assistance program can help pay for students to attend approved private elementary and secondary schools. Maine also has anti-discrimination protections in the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) that apply to schools that receive public funding. In the appeal, St. Dominic Academy (a Catholic school) challenged how those MHRA education rules apply to religious schools participating in the tuition program.
What the First Circuit upheld (for now)
The ruling is specifically about whether a preliminary injunction should halt enforcement while the case continues. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of an injunction for three categories of MHRA provisions:
- Employment Rule: the court said St. Dominic did not show it had a live case or controversy suitable for preliminary-injunction relief for this Employment Rule challenge.
- Religious Nondiscrimination Rule: the court said St. Dominic did not show a likelihood of success on its challenge to the rule as applied to St. Dominic’s claimed Catholic preference in admissions and financial aid.
- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule: the court found St. Dominic likewise did not show it was likely to succeed in blocking the preliminary enforcement of the provisions tied to these protections.
What the court reversed: the “Religious Expression” issue
The most significant change came from the court’s treatment of the MHRA’s separate Religious Expression Rule. The First Circuit concluded that—on the record at this stage—the rule burdens St. Dominic’s religious exercise and is not neutral. As a result, it applied strict scrutiny and found the challenged rule, as applied to St. Dominic, could not survive.
That led the First Circuit to reverse the denial of preliminary-injunction relief for the Religious Expression Rule and to remand the case for further proceedings, including the timely entry of a preliminary injunction against that provision in the way described by the opinion.
Who should pay attention
This decision matters beyond Maine because it sits inside the ongoing national fight over school-choice funding, civil-rights enforcement, and how far church-state separation and religious liberty doctrines go when public money is involved.
For families and schools, the immediate “practical” takeaway is that, at least at this procedural stage, some anti-discrimination requirements appear enforceable for tuition-funded religious schools—while a narrower religious-expression application is headed toward an injunction and continued litigation.
What to watch next
- Remand proceedings in district court to implement the preliminary injunction tied to the Religious Expression Rule, as applied to St. Dominic.
- Further development of the legal record on the remaining challenged MHRA provisions, which the First Circuit left in place for now during this preliminary-injunction posture.
- How the decision influences other school-choice disputes nationwide, especially cases that hinge on what conditions may be required when public funding is at stake.
Sources
Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.