In Palmer v. Virginia High School League, Inc., (WD VA, May 27, 2026), a Virginia federal district court rejected an equal protection challenge to a policy of Virginia's public high school interscholastic sports league that prohibits homeschooled students from participating in interscholastic competitions. Plaintiffs home school their 9th grade son primarily because of their Christian religious beliefs. Their son had been able to participate in track and field events in middle school. The court said in part:
The parties agree that, because there is no fundamental right or suspect classification at issue, rational basis review is the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny to employ....
Requiring RCSB and VHSL to expend funds to support homeschooled athletic participation without receiving corresponding enrollment-based funding would be a financial burden. As such, there is a reasonably conceivable basis for excluding homeschooled students from VHSL-sponsored competitions. ....
The court also finds persuasive defendants’ arguments regarding the logistical and competitive challenges associated with permitting homeschooled students to participate in VHSL athletics. Under the current system ... schools with larger enrollments compete against similarly sized schools, while smaller schools compete against one another. If homeschooled students were permitted to participate, the VHSL would need to decide whether those students should count toward a school’s enrollment numbers even though they are not actually enrolled in the school. Counting all homeschooled students within a “high school zone” could artificially inflate a school’s enrollment and force it into a higher competitive division, potentially disadvantaging the students who are actually enrolled. On the other hand, if homeschooled students were allowed to play without being counted toward enrollment totals, schools could gain a competitive advantage by drawing from a larger pool of athletes without moving into a higher classification.
The court refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims under the free exercise clause of the Virginia Constitution and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:
Article I, Section 16 of the Constitution of Virginia and the VRFRA provide far broader protections for religious liberty than their federal counterparts. However, the outer limits of those protections are not clearly defined....
... [T]his case presents difficult and unresolved questions of Virginia law. While this court often considers state-law matters, some of which are unsettled, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity lead the court to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Virginia state-law claims here. Those claims raise novel and undeveloped issues of Virginia constitutional and statutory law that are best left to the courts of the Commonwealth to resolve.
