Education – Court refuses to enjoin athletic ban on homeschooled students

Where parents argued that a policy barring homeschooled students from participating in public-school athletics violated the Equal Protection clause, but the policy is likely to survive rational-basis review, their injunction motion was denied.

Background

Daniel Palmer, Stacie Palmer and their child, S.P., bring this action against defendants Virginia High School League Inc., or VHSL, and Roanoke County School Board, or RCSB, alleging that defendants’ policy barring homeschooled students from participating in public-school athletics unlawfully discriminates against the Palmers, who homeschool S.P., primarily for religious reasons. Pending before the court is the Palmers’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Jurisdiction

The court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as to the Equal Protection claim, and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as to the Virginia state-law claims. However, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under certain circumstances. Therefore, before evaluating the preliminary injunction motion, the court will first determine whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the two Virginia state-law claims.

Virginia claims

The Palmers’ Free Exercise of Religion claim under Article I, Section 16 of the Constitution of Virginia and their claim under the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or VRFRA, both that the exclusionary policy unlawfully burdens their religious exercise by denying S.P. the opportunity to participate in interscholastic track & field and cross-country competitions because they homeschool him for religious reasons.

Although supplemental jurisdiction was neither briefed nor discussed at oral argument, the parties’ representations and the court’s independent research reveal that the Free Exercise claim under Article 1, Section 16 of the Constitution of Virginia and the VRFRA claim present novel issues of Virginia state law and substantially predominate over the federal Equal Protection claim. Federal precedent does not provide a clear answer, and neither the parties nor this court is aware of any Virginia Supreme Court or lower court decision that has addressed these questions.

Applying these standards to the Palmers’ claims against the defendants in this 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. Moreover, adopting the Palmers’ theory could have implications extending well beyond interscholastic athletics.

Although considerations of judicial economy and convenience weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Virginia state-law claims alongside S.P.’s Equal Protection claim, at this stage of the case, those factors are outweighed by the interests of fairness and comity. Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to separate those claims at this early stage of the litigation by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, the claims arising under the Virginia Constitution and the VRFRA will be dismissed without prejudice.

Injunction

To obtain such an injunction, the plaintiff must make a clear showing that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Assuming, without deciding, that S.P is similarly situated to his public-school peers and was intentionally discriminated against because he was homeschooled, the court nonetheless denies S.P’s motion for a preliminary injunction because he has failed to show that his Equal Protection claim is likely to survive rational-basis review.

Defendants have provided several rationales for their policy of excluding homeschooled students from participation in VHSL-sponsored competitions. The court does not detail all those rationales here, but it finds two particularly persuasive at this stage of the case. The first rationale relates to costs. The court also finds persuasive defendants’ arguments regarding the logistical and competitive challenges associated with permitting homeschooled students to participate in VHSL athletics.

Courts have upheld VHSL eligibility rules under rational basis review where the rules are tied to legitimate administrative and anti-recruiting objectives. Here, the classification system currently employed by VHSL and adopted by RCSB, which is in place to encourage fair competition, provides a reasonably conceivable basis for excluding homeschooled students. The court denies S.P.’s motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to the remaining claim alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment‘s Equal Protection Clause.

So ordered.

Palmer v. Virginia High School League, Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-00260, May 27, 2026. WDVA at Roanoke (Dillon). VLW 026-3-229. 20 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-3-229

• Palmer v. Virginia High School League, Inc.