Alliance Defending Freedom’s Vermont Foster Care Appeal Tests Religious Liberty Boundaries

Alliance Defending Freedom’s appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of two Vermont pastor families represents a significant constitutional challenge to state policies requiring foster parents to affirm LGBTQ+ identities. Wuoti v. Winters centers on whether Vermont’s foster care requirements violate religious freedom protections established in recent Supreme Court precedent.

Brian and Katy Wuoti, along with Bryan and Rebecca Gantt, lost their foster care licenses after declining to commit to affirming hypothetical children’s gender identities and sexual orientations. Both families maintained stellar records—Brian and Katy Wuoti adopted two brothers since becoming licensed in 2015, while Bryan and Rebecca Gantt specialized in caring for children born with drug dependencies, successfully adopting three children since 2016.

Their licenses were revoked under Vermont’s Policy 76, which requires foster parents to be “holistically affirming and supporting” of children’s sexual identity and gender expression, which could include using chosen pronouns, attending Pride events if requested, and refraining from exposing children to views that “sex is fixed and cannot be changed.” According to Alliance Defending Freedom’s legal filing, Vermont maintains that foster families must support all aspects of a child’s identity regardless of the family’s personal beliefs.

Constitutional Framework Centers on Fulton Precedent

Alliance Defending Freedom’s legal strategy builds directly on the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2021 decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which protected Catholic Social Services’ right to operate foster care services according to religious beliefs about marriage. The Fulton decision established that government policies allowing individualized exemptions cannot categorically deny religious exemptions without meeting strict constitutional scrutiny.

Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, ADF Senior Counsel representing these families, argued that “Vermont is putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids” and noted constitutional protection for “citizens caring for suffering children”. Alliance Defending Freedom’s opening brief contends that Vermont’s policy “suppresses ideas and viewpoints with which Vermont disagrees—exactly what the First Amendment prohibits” and “demands uniformity—excluding anyone who holds a different view” on gender identity issues.

Constitutional challenge rests on multiple First Amendment grounds: compelled speech violations, free exercise of religion, and free association rights, alongside Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims. Under Employment Division v. Smith framework governing religious liberty cases, laws must be both neutral toward religion and generally applicable to avoid triggering heightened constitutional scrutiny.

Foster Care Crisis Complicates State Interest Arguments

Vermont’s foster care system houses approximately 1,100 children with only 900 licensed foster families, creating placement pressures that have forced some children into police stations, hospitals, and out-of-state residential facilities. Crisis context complicates Vermont’s argument that it has a compelling state interest in maintaining strict ideological requirements for all foster families.

Alliance Defending Freedom has achieved notable success in similar cases, securing favorable settlements worth hundreds of thousands in attorney fees against New York and Michigan when those states targeted religious adoption agencies. The organization’s broader track record includes 15 Supreme Court victories since 2011.

The case reflects broader national tensions over religious exemptions in foster care. Twenty-nine states plus D.C. maintain LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination policies similar to Vermont’s, while 14 states have enacted laws protecting faith-based agencies’ religious autonomy. In the past, Catholic Charities have been forced to cease foster care operations rather than compromise its religious beliefs about family in several states, including California, Illinois, and Massachusetts. But the Fulton precedent provides a particularly strong constitutional foundation for religious liberty claims in child welfare contexts.

Precedent-Setting Implications for Religious Liberty

The Second Circuit’s decision will likely establish important precedent for balancing religious liberty against state anti-discrimination interests in child welfare. Unlike previous cases involving religious agencies, Wuoti directly challenges state requirements imposed on individual families, potentially expanding religious exemptions beyond institutional contexts.

Constitutional questions raised extend beyond foster care to broader issues of government-compelled speech and religious accommodation in public programs. Vermont’s categorical application of its policy—prohibiting these families from any form of foster care, including respite care or caring for relatives—may prove constitutionally vulnerable under Fulton‘s framework, requiring individualized consideration of religious exemption requests.

Success for Alliance Defending Freedom could encourage similar challenges in other states with comprehensive LGBTQ+ affirmation requirements, while defeat might signal judicial acceptance of broader state authority to impose ideological conformity on religious participants in government programs. The case ultimately tests whether religious families retain constitutional protection to participate in child welfare according to their beliefs, or whether states may require uniform ideological compliance as a condition of caring for vulnerable children.