Maine state law provides that any district without a public school option is eligible for tuition reimbursement for its students. This option is only available to designated “approved” private schools that are determined to be in compliance with the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). This antidiscrimination statute prohibits “discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected characteristics”(AU). Crosspoint Church, also a Christian educational institute of Bangor Christian Schools, refused to sign the MHRA when applying for students’ tuition reimbursement under this statute. Crosspoint then argued that the anti-discrimination act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon their free exercise of religion and free speech rights. Crosspoint Church then sued the Maine Department of Education Commissioner Pender Makin.
The question then remains: Does Crosspoint have a constitutional right not to sign the MHRA and still be eligible for state-funded tuition reimbursement?
The Maine statute is complicated in itself and has already been challenged by religious schools. Originally, the statute only made tuition eligible for secular institutions. It was only after the Supreme Court Case Carson v. Makin in 2022 that tuition reimbursement was allowed beyond secular schools, including religious schools, in Maine’s School Tuitioning Program. As First Liberty described, this change in legislation was a step toward “religious liberty.” However, Crosspoint argues that the Maine legislature added the MHRA caveat to uphold religious discrimination because it forces Bangor Christian Schools to disregard their religious obligation, when Crosspoint and other schools alike want to “consider in admissions applicants’ alignment with the school’s statement of faith and religious educational mission”(First Liberty). Their argument is accommodationist in that it believes there are to be some exceptions in order to uphold the Constitution’s “free exercise” clause. For this reason, Crosspoint argues that it does have a constitutional right not to sign the MHRA and still be eligible for state-funded tuition reimbursement under Maine’s School Tuitioning Program.
ACLU sees the opposing argument that reflects a more separatist point of view. They see the Christian school’s refusal to sign the MHRA as an attempt to discriminate against people of other faiths, gender identities, and sexual orientations. They make sure to point out that this is asking for much more than the original Carson v. Makin case. It is seeking an exemption from Maine’s School Tuitioning Program requirements, which asks all educational institutions, secular or not, to comply with a statute that actively works against discrimination to uphold government neutrality. For this reason, Crosspoint Church has a choice: it can either comply with the Maine School Tuitioning Program or not, thereby relinquishing its eligibility for state-funded tuition. The separationist perspective emphasizes the word “choice” in the matter. For this reason, the opposition argues that the Church does have a constitutional right not to sign the MHRA but is therefore no longer eligible for Maine’s School Tuitioning Program.
In 2023, the case was first brought to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The following year, the District Court found Maine’s antidiscrimination law to be neutral and generally applicable in its argument that Crosspoint Church is not forced to comply with these anti-discrimination measures to exist; it must comply with these measures in its choice to participate in state-funded tuition. However, Crosspoint appealed to the First Circuit in June and August of 2024. They were then joined by an additional religious institution, St. Dominic Academy v. Makin.
Based on the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Maine, I believe the First Circuit Court will rule similarly. While the original case of Carson v. Makin was designed to oppose discrimination in Maine law against religious institutions, the MHRA's caveat is to uphold the principle of generally applicable anti-discrimination measures. The Supreme Court's hesitance in granting an exemption to Crosspoint Church may set a precedent for future religious institutions seeking other exemptions that could undermine the state's neutrality.
While I am unsure where I land on the Carson v. Makin case regarding whether the tuition statute should exclude religious institutions from Maine's state-funded program, which provides that any district without a public school option is eligible for tuition reimbursement for students. However, in answering the issue at hand, I believe that Crosspoint has a constitutional right not to sign the MHRA, but I also believe that they are not eligible for Maine’s School Tuitioning Program. It is Crosspoint’s choice not to participate, and it does not infringe on its free exercise and free speech rights, as the church and religious institution have the right to exist and to teach under the protection of the government. The school’s right to choose whether to be eligible is its constitutional right, upheld by the free exercise clause. Exempting from the MHRA and providing state-funded tuition to Crosspoint Church and St. Dominic Academy would set a “slippery slope” precedent that could allow religious institutions to receive special treatment. I remain open-minded and interested in seeing how this is resolved, because I think it could be argued either way.
Citations:
https://www.aclumaine.org/press-releases/crosspoint-st-dominic-briefs-first-circuit/
https://www.aclu.org/cases/carson-v-makin
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-supreme-court-decision-carson-v-makin
https://www.aclumaine.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites/default/files/crosspoint_amicus_brief_as_filed_1.pdf
https://www.aclumaine.org/cases/crosspoint/
https://firstliberty.org/cases/bangor-christian-schools/
https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/crosspoint-church-v-makin/
https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/carson-v-makin/
2 comments:
I agree with your point that eligibility is a choice rather than an infringement of rights. As the District Court found, the MHRA is "neutral and generally applicable" and does not force compliance for the institution to exist. By requiring all participants to follow anti-discrimination laws, the state maintains neutrality and avoids a slippery slope where religious groups receive special treatment to discriminate while using public tuition funds.
I believe that since the Maine tuition requirements are applicable to every school and that not signing the requirements is a choice, I believe the court has the right to not give the money to Crosspoint Church.
Post a Comment