First Circuit rejects Maine religious-school exemption; remand for injunction

↻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 ruled in Crosspoint Church v. Makin that Maine may condition eligibility for its publicly funded private-school tuition assistance on compliance with the state’s education anti-discrimination law. The court, however, sent part of the dispute back to federal district court for further proceedings—specifically, for a permanent injunction against Maine’s challenged “Religious Expression Rule” as applied to the plaintiff.

For parents and school administrators who rely on tuition assistance, the decision draws a line between (1) Maine’s ability to require participation rules tied to state civil-rights law and (2) when First Amendment free-exercise protections prevent enforcement of a particular provision—here, the Religious Expression Rule.

What the First Circuit decided i

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of Crosspoint’s request for a permanent injunction. In particular:

• Affirmed in part: The court left in place the denial of a permanent injunction as to the Employment Rule (holding there was no case or controversy there) and rejected challenges to the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule and the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule.
• Reversed in part: The court held that Maine’s Religious Expression Rule unconstitutionally violates Crosspoint’s free-exercise rights as applied to Crosspoint.

The key next step: the First Circuit remanded “including the timely entry of a permanent injunction” against the Religious Expression Rule as applied to Crosspoint.

Maine’s tuition assistance and the MHRA’s education rules i

The dispute sits at the intersection of two Maine statutes. Maine’s tuition-assistance program helps eligible students attend qualifying private elementary and secondary schools using public funds. Separately, the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) includes education anti-discrimination requirements that apply to in-state schools that receive public funding.

The First Circuit described four MHRA “rules” at issue in the case, including:

• The Employment Rule (employment discrimination limits, with carveouts).
• The Religious Expression Rule, which provides that if an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate “between religions” in how it does so.
• The Religious Nondiscrimination Rule (limits discrimination in admissions, financial aid, and academics based on religion for covered schools).
• The Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule (limits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, with specific religious-related exemptions tied to public funding).

Why the court allowed Maine’s anti-discrimination conditions to apply i

The court framed its analysis around First Amendment free-exercise principles—whether Maine can require compliance with generally applicable civil-rights rules as a condition of being part of a public-benefit tuition-assistance system.

On several provisions, the court concluded Crosspoint had not shown a constitutional violation. But on the Religious Expression Rule, the court concluded the rule cannot be enforced against Crosspoint in the way Maine sought.

What this means for schools seeking or keeping tuition-aid eligibility i

Practically, the ruling reinforces that a religious school participating in Maine’s publicly funded tuition-assistance framework does not get an automatic First Amendment exemption from Maine’s education anti-discrimination requirements as a whole. At the same time, the court’s remand makes clear that at least one specific provision—the Religious Expression Rule—must be handled differently for Crosspoint, through a permanent-injunction process.

What to watch next i

Because the First Circuit remanded for “timely entry” of a permanent injunction, the immediate milestone is the District of Maine’s permanent-injunction proceedings and related orders. After that, further appeals are possible—so the next practical updates to follow are the district court filings and any guidance about the scope and operation of the injunction against the Religious Expression Rule as applied to Crosspoint.

Sources

• First Circuit opinion: Crosspoint Church v. Makin (No. 24-1590), issued July 2, 2026 (PDF)
• The Washington Post (AP-distributed reporting) summary and procedural context (July 9, 2026)
• Maine Human Rights Act education discrimination provision (Title 5, § 4602)

↻Ask Interactive NewsLook for updates to this storyFind out what has changed since this story was published.→

⇄Ask Interactive NewsRelated NewsDive deeper into these stories and how they connect.→

• Riverside Measure O scrutiny continues after state audit and court rulings
• North Yarmouth voters face county commissioner choice Nov. 3
• Hallowell to consider 180-day data-center moratorium draft
• Columbus City Schools expects preliminary 2.5-star state rating for 2025-26