Mid Vermont Christian School forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game to avoid playing a team with a transgender athlete. The school believes that forcing girls to compete against biological males would affirm that those males are females, in violation of its religious beliefs. In response to the forfeit, the Vermont Principals’ Association (“VPA”) expelled the school from all state-sponsored extracurricular activities. Plaintiffs Mid Vermont and several students and parents sued, bringing a Free Exercise claim and seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the school’s VPA membership and for other relief. The district court (Crawford, J.) denied the motion. We conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the VPA’s expulsion of Mid Vermont was not neutral because it displayed hostility toward the school’s religious beliefs; Plaintiffs are therefore likely to prevail on their Free Exercise claim. Because Plaintiffs also satisfy the remaining requirements for injunctive relief, the order of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings and with instructions to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction insofar as it seeks MidVermont’s reinstatement in the VPA.
…The VPA likely violated Mid Vermont’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion because its consideration of Mid Vermont’s case was not neutral.
…The First Amendment provides that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I; see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (incorporating the Free Exercise Clause against the states). “At its heart, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the ability of those who hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their faiths in daily life through the performance of religious acts.” Mahmoud v. Taylor, 145 S. Ct. 2332, 2351 (2025) (quotation marks omitted). It “guarantees to all Americans the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine they desire, even doctrines out of favor with a majority of fellow citizens.” New Hope Fam. Servs., Inc. v. Poole, 966 F.3d 145, 161 (2d Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
Of course, the protections afforded under the First Amendment are not limitless. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Free Exercise Clause “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability.” Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colo. C.R. Comm’n, 584 U.S. 617, 630-31 (2018) (quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, even under a neutral law of general applicability, the government still “fails to act neutrally when
it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs.” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 533 (2021). The First Amendment, in other words, guarantees not only that our laws be neutrally drafted, but that they subsequently “be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U.S. at 640 (emphasis added). The
government is thus “obliged under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of . . . religious beliefs” when taking action to enforce its laws—even laws that may be neutral and generally applicable on their face. Id. at 638. A plaintiff may therefore “prove a free exercise violation by showing that ‘official expressions of hostility’ to religion accompany” actions taken by the government to enforce its laws, and in such cases courts may set aside the adverse results of tainted enforcement proceedings “without further inquiry.” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 525 n.1 (2022) (quoting Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U.S. at 639).
“The Free Exercise Clause commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures.” Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 547 (1993). “Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U.S. at 639 (quotation marks omitted). From the record developed below, we conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to show that the VPA did not act neutrally toward Mid Vermont’s religious beliefs when it rendered its disciplinary decision.
First, Nichols’s public statements evinced hostility toward Mid Vermont’s religious beliefs. As described above, Nichols testified before Vermont’s House Education Committee just two days after Mid Vermont’s forfeit—but three weeks before the VPA announced the expulsion. Advocating for a bill that would block private, religious schools from receiving public funding, Nichols urged the House Education Committee to “do the right thing” and pass “legislation that doesn’t continue to allow misuses of taxpayer dollars to effectively discriminate against many of our children.” App’x at 183. In so doing, Nichols offered “official expressions of hostility to religion” that were “inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U.S. at 639.
…But “[a]n individual claiming violation of free exercise rights need only demonstrate that the beliefs professed are sincerely held and in the individual’s own scheme of things, religious. ” Fifth Ave. Presbyterian Church v. City of New York, 293 F.3d 570, 574 (2d Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted). That is because “courts should not inquire into the centrality of a litigant’s religious beliefs.” Kravitz v. Purcell, 87 F.4th 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2023). Read more»
Wesley, Sullivan, and Park, Circuit Judges, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Mid-Vermont Christian Schools v. Zoie Saunders et al. | September 9, 2025
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›