Last week, a Vermont federal district court in a series of opinions in two cases focused on challenges to the state's rules on licensing of foster parents. The suits were brought by couples who objected on religious grounds to the state's requirement that they be willing to accept any child regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
In Antonucci v. Winters I, (D VT, Feb. 20, 2025), the foster care license of plaintiffs was withdrawn because of their inability to comply with the state's non-discrimination requirement that included a commitment to facilitate the social and medical transition of a hypothetical future foster child. Plaintiffs asserted that complying with the requirement would violate their Christian religious beliefs about gender and sexuality. They sued seeking a preliminary injunction, contending that the requirement violated their free speech and free exercise rights. The court denied the preliminary injunction, saying in part:
Plaintiffs argue that, in this case, the state’s interest is not compelling because there is national, and even global, disagreement about the propriety of medical transitioning....
Evaluating the efficacy or safety of a particular procedure is not within this Court’s purview. The Court’s role is to determine whether the Rules and Policies enforced here, which pertain to medical and social transitioning as well as the use of gender-appropriate pronouns, serve a compelling state interest. At this stage in the case, Defendants have submitted sufficient evidence of the benefits of those policies to satisfy that portion of the strict scrutiny test....
The Court ... finds, based upon the current record, that the Rules and Policies established and implemented by DCF and Defendants serve the compelling interest of protecting the health and welfare of LGBTQ youth, and are narrowly-tailored to necessarily address that interest....
In Antonucci v. Winters II, (D VT, Feb. 20, 2025), the court on qualified immunity grounds dismissed plaintiffs' claim for damages for free exercise and free speech violations. It allowed plaintiffs to proceed on claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court did not dismiss plaintiffs' retaliation or equal protection claims because defendants had not offered specific arguments that they were covered by qualified immunity.
In Wuoti v. Winters, (D VT, Feb. 20, 2025), two couples whose foster parent licenses were not renewed challenged the state's foster parent policy on free speech, freedom of association and free exercise grounds. The court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, saying in part:
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are compelling them to “speak the State’s views while prohibiting them from expressing their religious views.”... Compliance with DCF Rules and Policies, however, is different from speech. Defendants did not compel Plaintiffs to change their beliefs, or to make any statements that disavowed those beliefs. Instead, Defendants were pursuing their mission of ensuring a welcoming, affirming, and safe home for each child....
Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants were compelling them to use preferred pronouns and to otherwise speak in ways that are contrary to their religious beliefs about gender and sexuality, while at the same time restricting them from expressing their own views on those issues. The DCF Rules and Policies at issue, however, are based upon research and feedback regarding outcomes for LGBTQ youth. The record does not establish that they are targeted at any religious viewpoint. Indeed, the alleged restrictions are at most incidental to rules of conduct designed to promote healthy and affirming homes....
Nothing in the record indicates that Defendants are compelling Plaintiffs to associate with any specific person or group. Plaintiffs protest that their license denials were based in part on their professed inability to associate with certain events, as in a pride parade. When DCF raised the possibility of attending a gay pride parade, however, the suggestion was merely hypothetical. Indeed, while Policy 76 suggests that staff “encourage” such activities, there is no requirement that foster families engage in them. Nor are Defendants preventing Plaintiffs from associating with others who share their beliefs, as in attending church. What foster parents may not do is require children in their care to engage in activities that are non-affirming....
Here, nothing on the face of DCF’s Rules and Policies targets religious practices or religious applicants....
... [T]he Court finds that Rules and Policies at issue are generally applicable, and that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their free exercise claim....
Plaintiffs are concerned about foster families whose religious beliefs are not consistent with DCF policies, DCF does not compel such families to change or reject their beliefs. What it does require is the provision of an affirming environment for children who are, or who come to identify as, LGBTQ.
