A federal appeals court is poised to deliberate on a case involving allegations of discrimination by the University of Maine system against a Christian church.
The church, Calvary Chapel Belfast, had initially secured a bid to purchase a disused school property, only to have the decision reversed due to its religious beliefs.
According to WND, Liberty Counsel, representing Calvary Chapel Belfast, contends that the lower court erroneously permitted the university system to annul the church's successful bid. This decision was made "despite evidence of religious animus and numerous irregularities in the bidding process."
Liberty Counsel's chief, Mat Staver, stated, "Calvary Chapel Belfast rightfully won the University of Maine Systems first bidding process, and the appeals court will have the chance to ensure the university honors that bid." Staver further argued that the church engaged in the bidding process with integrity, but the University of Maine System (UMS) unlawfully rescinded their winning bid due to religious beliefs, citing procedural deficiencies as a pretext.
He emphasized, "Such discrimination is unlawful, and an injunction is necessary to restore the churchs bid award and stop these unconstitutional actions."
The controversy dates back to November 2024, when the church contested the university's decision to revoke its winning bid for the Hutchinson Center. The revocation was attributed to "public, legislative, and donor outcry over" the church's Christian beliefs.
Liberty Counsel, advocating for an injunction, argued that UMS officials deviated from standard bidding procedures, entertained invalid appeals from unsuccessful bidders, and cited the relocation of an Internet hub as a "cost-avoidance deficiency" to justify rescinding the award.
Liberty Counsel further asserted that UMS subsequently conducted a second, biased bidding process that favored a secular bidder. Despite presenting evidence, the legal team noted that Judge Stacey Neumann denied the injunction request. Liberty Counsel now argues that "decisions from at least four other appeals courts make clear that when adverse government actions follow in sequence after 'bigoted community opposition,' any 'direct and circumstantial evidence' of discriminatory intent is 'valid.'"
The crux of the issue lies in whether the government decision-maker acted upon objections rooted in intentional discrimination. Liberty Counsel highlighted that the record demonstrates UMS's actions were influenced by "extraordinary religiously motivated opposition from UMaine donors, faculty, alumni, and the disappointed bidders."
The legal team contends that by granting an appeal from a losing bidder tainted with religious animus, overruling its own procurement experts, and disregarding the competitive negotiated procurement process, UMS engaged in religious discrimination.
As the appeals court prepares to hear the case, the outcome could have significant implications for how religious organizations are treated in public bidding processes. The case underscores the ongoing tension between religious freedom and public policy, a topic that resonates deeply within conservative circles advocating for limited government intervention and the protection of individual liberties.
Login