Maine Human Rights Act: No Language Allowing Men to Compete Against Women

Investigations

Issues

Maine’s officials, such as Attorney General Aaron Frey and Department of Education Commissioner Pender Makin, have used the Maine Human Rights Act as an excuse to not follow the Trump administration’s Title IX guidance. They claim that this state law supersedes federal law and that the state law prevents them from prohibiting biological males from competing in women’s sports. The state’s officials are wrong on both accounts. In order to comply with federal law, the state must restrict women’s athletics to biological females.

Key Highlights

  • Maine’s officials, including Governor Janet Mills, Attorney General Aaron Frey, and Department of Education Commissioner Pender Makin, have refused to follow federal Title IX guidance to restrict female sports to biological women.
  • Maine’s officials used flawed arguments to defend their position. They have claimed that state law supersedes federal law and that the Maine Human Rights Act mandates biological men to compete in women’s sports. The state law makes no reference to transgender athletes or this issue.
  • The language in the Maine Human Rights Act explicitly contradicts Governor Janet Mills’ interpretation of the law allowing men to compete against women. The law’s language includes exceptions in allowing people to have access to activities if there is a “direct threat” to the safety of others.
  • While the Maine Human Rights Act does not defend allowing men to compete against women in sports, the law is still terrible in its current iteration. The original intent of the law passed in 1971 was to protect people’s civil rights. Activist legislators have updated the law in the past two decades to specifically promote LGBTQ issues.

Maine’s Officials Defend Men in Women’s Sports

Since returning to office in early 2025, President Donald Trump has signed two important executive orders in an effort to ensure that America’s schools once again prioritize educating students and preparing them for the real world. The president signed the first executive order — Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling — on January 29 to remove gender ideology from the lessons taught to children in classrooms. He then signed his next executive order — Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports — on February 5 to prohibit schools from allowing biological men to continue participating in women’s sports. If schools and larger jurisdictions refuse to comply, then they lose their federal funding.

Despite the physical danger and unfairness posed by males participating in female sports, Maine’s officials have defended allowing this to continue. At a televised dinner with the nation’s governors in February, Trump told Maine Governor Janet Mills that she needed to follow the law and restrict female sports to biological women. Mills refused and responded by claiming that she would see him in court. When defending the practice of allowing men to continue participating in women’s sports, Maine’s officials usually rely on the Maine Human Rights Act.

In an interview in April, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey explained that “we are confident in our read on Title IX and on the Maine Human Rights Act and what’s required of our state.” Defending Education previously found emails from a public records request of Maine Department of Education (MDOE) Commissioner Pender Makin citing the Maine Human Rights Act as the reason for allowing men to continue playing in women’s sports and insinuated that the state’s authority overrules federal law. In an email dated February 21, she stated:

As you all know, the Maine Human Rights Act protects all people, including transgender people, from discriminatory practices and harassment. This law was enacted by the Maine Legislature and Maine DOE has advised MPA and all schools to follow the laws of our state. There are many congressional barriers and checks and balances of government that should prevent the president from acting on his statement.

4_RedactedDownload

Maine Officials Use Flawed Argument

Commissioner Makin’s argument is flawed in that state law cannot supersede federal law. Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution specifically states that the “Laws of the United States” shall be the “supreme Law of the Land.” The Constitution follows this by explaining that “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” This explicitly means that federal law overrides state law.

Another problem with Maine’s officials citing the state’s Human Rights Act is that the law makes no reference to transgender athletes or allowing men to compete in women’s sports. When mentioning sports, the law states that an educational institution cannot “deny a person equal opportunity in athletic programs.” Considering that a biological male can still participate in the boys’ division sports, Trump’s executive order reaffirming Title IX’s protection of women’s sports is not denying anyone’s access to participating in athletics.

Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey claimed that the president of the United States “does not create law nor interpret law.” He accused Trump’s executive order banning men from women’s sports as enacting “his own interpretation of the law.” Despite ignoring a history of both Democratic and Republican presidents implementing Title IX to their own interpretations with each new administration, Frey appears to be turning a blind eye to what he and other Maine officials are doing.

Since the Maine Human Rights Act makes no reference to men playing in women’s sports, the only way that Maine’s officials can cite the law in defending the practice is if they interpret the law to say something that it does not. According to Frey’s own argument, if the president cannot interpret established federal law, then neither can a governor interpret established state law in a similar manner.

Maine Human Rights ActDownload

Law Contradicts Maine Officials’ Interpretation

The Maine Human Rights Act additionally contradicts how the state’s officials interpret the law. In multiple instances, the Maine Human Rights Act states that a “direct threat” — or “significant risk” — can supersede the law and prevent a protected category of people from having access to services and activities if the safety of others is endangered. Under a section labeled as “Unlawful public accommodations,” the law states:

This section does not require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that entity when the individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For the purposes of this section, the term “direct threat” means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that can not be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.

Direct Threat 1Download

Under another section labeled as “Discrimination by public entities prohibited,” the law states:

Exception; direct threat. This section does not require a public entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from a service, program or activity of a public entity when the individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For the purposes of this subsection, “direct threat” means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of a policy, practice or procedure or by the provision of an auxiliary aid or service.

Direct Threat 2Download

The fact that allowing biological males to compete in female sports poses a significant risk to the physical safety of women is well documented. In 2024 at the Paris Olympics, Italian boxer Angela Carini was forced to quit her bout after only a few punches from her opponent who was a biological male. In another incident in 2024 during a girls’ basketball game between two Massachusetts high school teams, one team had to forfeit at halftime after a series of injuries caused by a transgender player on the opposing team. In 2022, a biological male spiked a ball into Payton McNabb’s face during a high school volleyball game in North Carolina, causing a brain injury and partial paralysis.

According to the Maine Human Rights Act, a “direct threat” to the safety of other people is a valid reason for not allowing a transgender individual to compete with women. There are numerous instances of biological males inflicting severe harm onto women in sports. A person who poses a “significant risk to the health or safety of others” can explicitly be denied access to an activity. By the specific language used in the Maine Human Rights Act, the law unequivocally contradicts the current interpretation by the state’s officials.

Maine Human Rights Act Still Troubling

Maine’s State Legislature originally passed the state’s Human Rights Act in 1971. At the time, the law made no reference to LGBTQ issues, such as sexual orientation or gender identity. The intent of the law was to ensure that the civil rights of the state’s residents were protected from discrimination, regardless of their race, sex, disability, or religion. The category “sexual orientation” was eventually added to the law in 2005. In 2019, Governor Mills signed legislation into law that added “gender identity” as another protected category in the Maine Human Rights Act. This was then clarified further in additional legislation passed in 2021.

While the Maine Human Rights Act does not reference transgender athletes or men competing against women, the most recent version of the law does heavily promote LGBTQ issues and gender ideology. Each section of the law discussing the rights of individuals now specifically mentions “gender identity” as a protected class. The law mandates that public accommodations respect the gender identity of individuals. This includes banning the practice of having single-occupancy restrooms designated specifically for men or women. The law now states:

Unlawful public accommodations. For any public accommodation to designate a single-occupancy toilet facility as for use only by members of one sex. A single-occupancy toilet facility may be identified by a sign, as long as the sign does not indicate that the facility is for use by members of one specific sex. For the purposes of this subsection, a “single-occupancy toilet facility” is a restroom for use by one user at a time or for family or assisted use and that has an outer door that can be locked by the occupant.

The law also prohibits naming places or buildings with names that can be considered “offensive.” If the name of a place is deemed offensive, the state will attempt to reach an agreement to change the name. If an agreement cannot be reached, the state will “file in the Superior Court a civil action seeking such relief as is appropriate.”