Antonucci v. Winters, 767 F.Supp.3d 122

Plaintiffs (Antonucci and Mathieu), active Christians, applied to become foster parents in Vermont and were licensed after expressing some hesitation about supporting a transgender-identifying child.
Vermont DCF policies, revised after documented needs and poor outcomes for LGBTQ foster youth, require affirming and supportive care for all children, including facilitating social and medical transition for transgender children if needed.
After a brief emergency placement, DCF questioned Plaintiffs about their willingness to affirm a transgender child and use preferred pronouns following a Facebook post expressing objections to such policies.
Plaintiffs refused to commit to facilitating a child's social or medical gender transition, citing religious grounds but stated willingness to foster any child regardless of gender identity.
DCF initiated revocation of their foster license for failing to comply with its anti-discrimination and gender-affirming requirements; Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent revocation during litigation.
This order addresses whether a preliminary injunction should issue while the constitutional claims are adjudicated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Free Speech (Compelled Speech/Viewpoint Discrimination)	DCF compelled them to agree to speech/actions against their beliefs.	Rules regulate conduct to ensure child welfare, not plaintiffs' speech.	Conduct requirements are not compelled speech; injunction denied.
Free Exercise of Religion	DCF policies target and burden their religious practices and beliefs.	Policies are neutral and generally applicable, aimed at child welfare.	Policies are neutral, generally applicable; rational basis satisfied.
Equal Protection	Policies discriminate against religious foster parents.	Requirements apply to all, no targeting of religious objectors.	No selective burden; policies are generally applicable.
Preliminary Injunction Standard	Revocation causes irreparable harm to constitutional rights.	No likelihood of success; state interest in protecting foster children.	No likelihood of success; public interest favors defendants.

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (outlines preliminary injunction as an extraordinary remedy)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (sets key standards for granting preliminary injunctions)
Church of Am. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik, 356 F.3d 197 (balances individual free speech with state interests)
Cent. Rabbinical Cong. of U.S. & Can. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, 763 F.3d 183 (explains neutrality and general applicability under Free Exercise)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (neutral and generally applicable laws under Free Exercise Clause)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (states have compelling interest in protecting children)
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (narrow tailoring in strict scrutiny analysis)