Skip to content
Chimera readability score 64 out of 100, Academic reading level.

Maine is allowed to exclude Catholic schools and other private institutions from public funding if the schools refuse to abide by gender- and sexuality-related nondiscrimination laws, a federal appeals court said this month.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on July 2 ruled against St. Dominic Academy in the Diocese of Portland, denying the school’s request for an injunction against Maine’s LGBT-related nondiscrimination rules. If granted, the injunction would have allowed the school to access public funding streams.
The school had argued against requirements that it facilitate student “gender transitions” and had said it would not require staff to refer to students by opposite-sex pronouns.
The court, however, said that “combatting sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination” is a “legitimate governmental pursuit” and that requiring publicly funded schools to follow those rules “rationally relates” to that pursuit.
Such schools are also required to publicly affirm the “gender identity” of their students, the court said.
The ruling comes several years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Maine could not ban students from using public student aid to attend religious schools. The high court ruled that the state in its policy “identif[ied] and exclude[d] otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”
A “neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients” does not violate the U.S. Constitution, the court held in the 2022 case Carson v. Makin.
Adèle Keim, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Catholic school in the suit, told EWTN News that ahead of the Carson decision Maine moved to alter its public funding policy to include the rules regarding gender and sexuality nondiscrimination.
“They knew it would be a red line for the schools that had been suing the state,” she said.
Keim said this month’s appeals court ruling was partially favorable to St. Dominic Academy; it found, for instance, that the state cannot dictate faith-related hiring practices and cannot dictate religious expression rules on school campuses.
Yet the appeals court ruled that schools enjoy “no constitutional protection” related to the nondiscrimination policies, she said. She argued that the decision runs afoul of multiple Supreme Court decisions, including the Carson ruling along with the landmark 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
The schools could mount a bid to the Supreme Court over the appeals decision, she said.
A similar lawsuit had been brought by the nondenominational Crosspoint Church, which runs a K–12 Christian school. The appeals court had partly combined the suits of the respective churches into one ruling.
Keim said that Catholic education had been publicly funded for decades in Maine before lawmakers in the early 1980s targeted Catholic schools for exclusion.
“It’s a [sparsely populated] state,” she said. “Its population is spread out over a large territory. The government has always partnered with private schools to get the job done of meeting the state constitutional guarantee of free education for all kids.”
She said the parts of the appeals court ruling that found in favor of the Catholic schools were “terrific.” But the nondiscrimination portion of the ruling “really jumped off a cliff,” she argued.
On X, meanwhile, Becket attorney Eric Rassbach said after the appeals ruling that the Supreme Court will consider a similar case in October related to nondiscrimination rules and public funding of religious schools.
Governments “cannot evade [Supreme Court precedent] by relabeling discrimination against religion as ‘nondiscrimination,’” he wrote. “The Constitution demands more.”
Sign up for the EWTN News Email and Stay Connected
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Colorado violated the First Amendment by excluding Catholic preschools from its universal preschool program.

Facts Only

* The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled against St. Dominic Academy regarding an injunction request against Maine’s LGBT-related nondiscrimination rules.
* The school sought an injunction to access public funding streams under Maine's rules.
* The school argued against requirements facilitating student "gender transitions" and staff pronoun usage.
* The court found that combating sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination is a legitimate governmental pursuit.
* The court found that requiring publicly funded schools to follow these rules rationally relates to the pursuit of fighting discrimination.
* Schools are required to publicly affirm student gender identity, according to the court.
* A prior Supreme Court ruling stated Maine could not ban students from using public aid for religious school attendance based on religious exercise.
* The court noted that a "neutral benefit program" where public funds flow through private religious organizations does not violate the U.S. Constitution (Carson v. Makin).
* An attorney argued the appeals ruling found that the state cannot dictate faith-related hiring practices or religious expression rules on school campuses, but schools enjoy no constitutional protection regarding nondiscrimination policies.

Executive Summary

A federal appeals court ruled that Maine may exclude Catholic schools and other private institutions from public funding if those schools refuse to comply with gender- and sexuality-related nondiscrimination laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit denied a request for an injunction allowing St. Dominic Academy to access public funding, which would have been contingent on complying with Maine's LGBT-related nondiscrimination rules. The school had previously argued against requirements that mandate facilitating student "gender transitions" and prohibitions on using opposite-sex pronouns for students. The court determined that combating sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination is a legitimate governmental pursuit that rationally relates to the requirement that publicly funded schools follow those rules, including a requirement to publicly affirm student gender identity. This ruling follows prior rulings regarding Maine's ability to exclude religious schools from public aid and established precedent concerning neutral benefit programs for religious organizations.

Full Take

The analysis reveals a tension between evolving civil rights jurisprudence and established protections for religious freedom in public education funding. The central conflict lies in whether the governmental pursuit of combating gender and sexual identity discrimination overrides institutional claims based on religious autonomy, especially when public funds are involved. The appellate decision shifts the focus from absolute constitutional protection for schools to the state’s legitimate interest in enforcing non-discrimination standards within publicly funded environments, setting a precedent that implies functional compliance is necessary for receiving public resources.
The underlying pattern suggests an ongoing legal negotiation over where the boundaries of religious liberty intersect with secular state responsibilities, particularly in education. The distinction drawn by the court between faith-related hiring practices and campus expression rules, while potentially favorable to the schools, starkly contrasts with the finding that these institutions lack broader constitutional protection against nondiscrimination mandates. This creates a dynamic where institutional autonomy is weighed against societal obligations for inclusivity, prompting future legal challenges at the Supreme Court level, as suggested by commentary regarding subsequent cases. The narrative implicitly frames public funding as a mechanism through which secular values are enforced, forcing religious entities to reconcile their mission with contemporary standards of equity.
Bridge questions: How will this precedent affect other jurisdictions grappling with similar conflicts between state mandates and religious institutional governance? What is the long-term impact on the separation of church and state when public finance is involved in implementing social policy? If schools are required to affirm gender identity, what mechanisms can be established to ensure these requirements align with diverse religious viewpoints without infringing on core tenets of religious belief?

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

This text appears to be a synthesis of specific legal news with embedded expert commentary, suggesting a foundation in journalistic reporting rather than purely synthetic generation.

Signals Detected
low severity: Sentence length variance shows natural variation; sophisticated legal/political jargon interspersed with direct quotes.
low severity: Maintains a complex, multi-layered argument structure involving appeals court rulings and Supreme Court precedent, showing coherent conceptual flow.
low severity: The text accurately tracks the progression of legal arguments (Maine ruling -> Carson -> Mahmoud/future cases) and attributes specific legal positions to named attorneys.
low severity: References to specific case names (Carson v. Makin, Mahmoud v. Taylor, St. Dominic Academy) and attorney commentary suggest grounded reporting, even if some interpretive framing is present.
Human Indicators
The embedded voice of the attorney (Adèle Keim) provides idiosyncratic emotional emphasis regarding the legal shifts ('really jumped off a cliff'), which is difficult for pure LLMs to generate authentically without heavy prompting.
The focus weaves between specific local rulings and broad constitutional implications, characteristic of investigative or detailed legal reporting.
Federal court: Maine Christian schools receiving public funding must follow gender, sexuality rules — Arc Codex