This case arose after Mid Vermont Christian School (“Mid Vermont”), a private religious K–12 school in Quechee, Vermont, forfeited a girls’ state playoff basketball game in February 2023. The forfeit occurred after Mid Vermont learned that the opposing team from Long Trail School included a transgender student-athlete.
The Vermont Principals’ Association (“VPA”) is a state actor responsible for regulating school athletics and extracurricular activities. Citing religious objections to permitting biological males to compete in girls’ sports, the School requested that the VPA stop the transgender athlete from playing. The VPA denied the request, claiming that the accommodation would violate the Vermont Public Accommodations Act, and the Agency of Education’s “Best Practices For Schools For Transgender And Gender Nonconforming Students.” Mid Vermont declined to participate, citing safety and fairness concerns. Days later, the VPA expelled Mid Vermont from all VPA-sanctioned events—including sports and academic competitions.
Following its expulsion, Mid Vermont, along with several students and parents, filed suit against the VPA and various Vermont education officials, bringing claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement to the VPA and argued that the VPA’s disciplinary action constituted unconstitutional religious discrimination. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the VPA’s gender identity policy was a neutral, generally applicable rule that applied to all schools regardless of religious belief.
The Second Circuit reversed. Applying the four-part standard for a preliminary injunction, the Court evaluated: (1) whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether they would suffer irreparable harm without relief; (3) whether the balance of equities tipped in their favor; and (4) whether the public interest favored an injunction. On the first prong, the Court concluded that plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their Free Exercise claim. Drawing on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Court explained that even facially neutral laws may violate the Free Exercise Clause if enforced in a way that reflects hostility toward religious beliefs.
The Court found evidence of such hostility in this case. It cited public statements by the VPA Executive Director Jay Nichols—including his remarks before the Vermont legislature, where he criticized Mid Vermont’s refusal to play as “blatant discrimination under the guise of religious freedom” and called the School’s values incompatible with public education norms. The Court also pointed to the VPA’s procedural departures: it bypassed its own disciplinary process, failed to provide notice or a hearing, and issued a blanket expulsion that extended far beyond the basketball team. The Court concluded that the VPA’s actions raised serious concerns about religious neutrality and potentially targeted Mid Vermont because of its religious identity.
With respect to the remaining injunction factors, the Court found that exclusion from VPA activities imposed irreparable harm by depriving students of access to extracurricular opportunities. It also emphasized that protecting First Amendment rights served the public interest. The Court rejected the VPA’s arguments that its actions were justified by antidiscrimination principles, explaining that where there is evidence of hostility toward religion, the government’s enforcement action is per se invalid. Because the plaintiffs had satisfied all four elements, the Court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the preliminary injunction and reinstate Mid Vermont’s full membership in the VPA.
Mid Vt. Christian Sch. v. Saunders (2d Cir. 2025) 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23189
Note: As debates around gender identity and athletics continue, this case highlights the legal tension between nondiscrimination policies and religious freedom claims.