A win for religious freedom and women’s rights in sports in Vermont

Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders is a win for religious liberty, female student-athletes, fair play, and common sense.

The Second Circuit, reversing an earlier order to the contrary, reasoned that educational officials, parents, and the female student-athletes were entitled to a preliminary injunction reinstating the school’s membership in the Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA), the organization regulating the state’s middle- and high-school extracurricular activities. The VPA had expelled Mid Vermont because it forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game to avoid competing against a team with a “transgender” athlete.

In light of the potential impact of Mid Vermont as a game-changing ruling protecting religious freedom and female student-athletes, I will review the case’s judicial history before reflecting on its significance.

Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders

In November 2023, Mid Vermont Christian School, four students, and their parents, filed suit seeking injunctive and other remedies, including readmission to the VPA. Controversy arose after Mid Vermin’s girls’ basketball team forfeited a playoff game on February 23, 2023, against a team that included a “transgender” team member. Two days later, the VPA banned Mid Vermont and its student-athletes from league play and any other events it sponsored because its rules forbade members from discriminating due to sexual orientation or gender identity.

The plaintiffs filed suit because they believe that requiring girls to compete against biological males violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by essentially having to accept transgender competitors as females, contradicting their Christian belief that “sex is God-given and immutable and that God created each of us either male or female.”

Interestingly, neither the parties nor the courts raised the status of the far-reaching Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Under Title IX, “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”

The federal trial court in Vermont denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction restoring their eligibility because it thought VPA officials had a rational basis for acting in light of their legitimate interest in extending the protection of inclusion to transgender students. The court was convinced that because the VPA applied the rule uniformly, not singling out religious organizations, it did not violate the First Amendment.

On appeal, the Second Circuit unanimously reversed in favor of the plaintiffs.

At the heart of its analysis, the Second Circuit determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the “VPA’s decision was indeed accompanied by official expressions of hostility to religion.”

The court acknowledged that although VPA “had never before banned a school from all sporting events,” its officials “ignored the detailed procedural requirements governing its disciplinary process…[and] flouted its own rules.” The court also commented that “[t]he VPA’s Executive Director publicly castigated Mid Vermont—and religious schools generally—while the VPA rushed to judgment on whether and how to discipline the school [as it] doubled down on that hostility by challenging the legitimacy of the school’s religious beliefs.”

The court concluded that because the plaintiffs demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm and that the public interest was best served by granting their request, they were entitled to a preliminary injunction restoring their eligibility to participate in VPA-approved athletic events.

Reflection and analysis

Whether individuals identifying as “transgender” should be allowed to participate in sports for women, including those involving significant bodily contact, is certainly a serious and pressing issue. Moreover, this dispute comes at a time when it appears that the number of young Americans identifying as “transgender” or “non-binary” has declined dramatically over the past few years, signaling that attitudes, too, may be changing.

Among the vocal allies of allowing transgender students to compete against young women, Mazie Hirono, the Democrat senator from Hawaii, stands out. In 2022, Hirono argued “[w]e shouldn’t be banning anyone from playing sports,” claiming “ that these bans are deeply harmful to transgender girls.” However, she conveniently ignored physiological differences between males.

In September 2025, however, in response to training standards for male and female FBI agents, Hirono spoke out of the other side of her mouth in challenging the strength and fitness requirements. When questioning FBI Director Kash Patel, she said, “[o]ne question I had is that you are now requiring applicants to be able to do a certain kind of pull-ups, which a lot of women cannot because of physiological differences. Are you requiring these kinds of pull-ups?”

Hirono decried such equal standards for adult males and females as “harsh.” If she recognized that there are strength differences between adult men and women, why won’t she and supporters of males in female sports recognize the existence of the same differences among younger people?

Which approach do proponents of transgender athletes in female sports support: men and women are equally physiologically, or they are not? In light of physiological differences, a biological reality reflected in XX and XY chromosomes, allowing transgender athletes puts women at risk.

Young women participating in unfair competitions with transgender athletes are losing medals and awards, as well as possible scholarships, while risking serious injuries in contact sports. In fact, there are examples of when female high school students were seriously injured by transgender athletes in sports such as volleyball and basketball.

Along with the high-profile stories associated with Riley Gaines, a swimmer who graduated from the University of Kentucky and lost to a transgender athlete, who is now a high-profile supporter of sports for females, a 2024 United Nations report provides evidence of the inequity resulting when transgender athletes compete in events for women.

According to this document, “by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports” to transgender competitors.

The same report pointed out that “[m]ale athletes have specific attributes considered advantageous in certain sports, such as strength and testosterone levels that are higher than those of the average range for females, even before puberty, thereby resulting in the loss of fair opportunity,” adding that “[t]o avoid the loss of a fair opportunity, males must not compete in the female categories of sport.”

Returning to the dispute over Mid Vermont, in light of the Second Circuit’s having acknowledged the discriminatory animus of VPA officials, it is remarkable that the trial court ignored such behavior in holding that they did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights in treating them and their beliefs so unfairly. As such, regardless of whether school officials and parents are unwilling to have their female athletes participate in unfair competitions against transgender individuals due to their religious beliefs or out of a sense of competitive fairness, it is inappropriate for league (and perhaps state) officials to allow young women to be placed in such difficult circumstances.

With a case from West Virginia over a transgender athlete’s eligibility to participate in female sports at the Supreme Court, the Court and Congress will both have to weigh in to ensure fundamental fairness and safety for women. Protecting the rights of women should be a high priority, regardless of whether disputes are based on religious objections or undeniable biological differences.

Read original article