Case Explained: CROSSPOINT CHURCH v. A. PENDER MAKIN

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-02

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s order denying Crosspoint Church’s motion for a permanent injunction against provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). The court held that no case or controversy existed regarding the Employment Rule because existing carveouts already permitted religious organizations to discriminate in favor of co-religionists. The court further affirmed the denial of relief regarding the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule and the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule, concluding that these rules regulate conduct rather than speech and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause, even when applied to a private Christian school’s admissions and expulsion policies based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The court reversed the denial of relief regarding the Religious Expression Rule, holding that it unconstitutionally violates the Free Exercise Clause by discriminating between religions in permitting religious expression. The court applied strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause for laws not neutral or of general application, rejecting Crosspoint’s argument that 2021 amendments to the MHRA were motivated by specific animus toward the school, finding instead a logical legislative rationale for aligning education provisions with existing employment and housing standards. Regarding the Free Speech claim, the court applied rational basis review, distinguishing the case from precedents like *Hurley* and *303 Creative* because the MHRA prohibited discriminatory conduct based on status rather than compelling the school to convey a specific message or speech. The practical consequence is that the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to enter a permanent injunction enjoining the Religious Expression Rule as applied to Crosspoint Church, while the other challenged provisions of the MHRA remain enforceable against the school.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.