美国联邦第一巡回上诉法院作出裁决，规定接受政府资助的私立宗教学校必须遵循缅因州的禁止歧视法律。该判决驳回了圣多明我会学院（Saint Dominic Academy）和班戈基督教学校（Bangor Christian Schools）等机构寻求豁免的请求 [1]。法院认定，州政府在执行反歧视法规时拥有合法的公共利益，且在此过程中保持了中立立场 [1]。
根据缅因州人权法修正案，教育机构被明确禁止基于性别认同、性取向或宗教信仰进行歧视 [1]。裁决进一步确认，公共资金不得用于支持此类歧视行为，宗教学校也不得在招生中给予特定信仰的学生优先待遇 [1]。法院指出，“打击针对性取向和性别认同的歧视与打击宗教歧视一样，都属于合法的政府追求”[1]。
尽管核心禁令明确，但法院表示将在就业实践和宗教表达方面保留一定的空间 [1]。代表圣多明我会学院的律师阿黛尔·凯姆（Adèle Keim）称，关于就业实践和宗教表达的判决结果是学校的胜利 [1]。另一方面，代表十字点教会（Crosspoint Church）的律师杰里米·迪斯（Jeremy Dys）表示：“我们正在为客户查看所有回应此意见的正确选项”[1]。他同时指出，“上诉至最高法院可能成为必要”[1]。
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that private religious schools receiving public funding in Maine must comply with state anti-discrimination laws prohibiting bias based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or religion [1]. The decision rejected exemption requests filed by institutions including Saint Dominic Academy and Bangor Christian Schools [1].
The court determined that the state possesses a legitimate government interest when enforcing these regulations while maintaining neutrality toward religious beliefs [1]. Under Maine's Human Rights Act amendments, discrimination in education based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or religion is explicitly forbidden [1]. Consequently, schools receiving public funds cannot discriminate against applicants for admission regarding these factors nor grant preferential treatment to students of specific faiths [1].
While the ruling affirms that core anti-discrimination mandates apply, it acknowledged certain leeway in matters concerning employment practices and religious expression [1]. The court noted that combating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a legitimate government pursuit comparable to fighting religious discrimination [1]. Adèle Keim, representing Saint Dominic Academy, characterized the findings regarding employment practices and religious expression as victories for her clients [1]. Conversely, Jeremy Dys, attorney for Crosspoint Church, stated they are reviewing all appropriate options in response to the opinion [1], adding that an appeal to the Supreme Court may become necessary [1].