A federal appellate court has upheld a ban on “Let’s Go Brandon” apparel in Michigan schools, ruling the phrase can be interpreted as profane and thus subject to school dress codes that prohibit disruptive or vulgar clothing.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a decision in the case of B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, supporting a Michigan school district’s choice to prohibit certain clothing without infringing on students’ First Amendment rights. This case centered on two middle school students in Howard City, Michigan, who were asked to remove sweatshirts featuring the slogan “Let’s Go Brandon.” This phrase has been widely recognized as a euphemism for “F*** Joe Biden.”
The slogan gained notoriety following a 2021 NASCAR event, where NBC reporter Kelli Stavast mistakenly reported that the crowd was chanting “Let’s go Brandon” instead of the explicit anti-Biden chant they were actually using. This incident quickly became a politically charged meme, often used as a coded insult against President Biden.
The appellate panel, which included Judges John Nalbandian and Karen Nelson Moore, concluded that schools have the authority to prohibit clothing with explicit profanity. They noted that apparel like the “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts could reasonably be interpreted as profane. The court pointed out that other political expressions, such as “Make America Great Again” hats, were permitted, highlighting that the restriction was based on vulgarity rather than political message.
Judge Nalbandian explained, “Because Defendants reasonably interpreted the phrase as having a profane meaning, the School District can regulate wearing of ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ apparel during school without showing interference or disruption at the school.” This ruling reinforces the ability of schools to maintain a respectful and non-disruptive environment.
In contrast, Judge John K. Bush offered a strong dissent, arguing that the slogan constituted “purely political speech” which should be protected. He believed the decision should be overturned, emphasizing that the clothing did not cause any disruption within the school. Bush cautioned that limiting political speech on the grounds of offensiveness threatens fundamental First Amendment rights.
The students’ mother had contested the ban, claiming it violated her children’s constitutional rights, particularly their freedom of expression. The school district defended its actions by pointing to a dress code that prohibits “messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane,” justifying the administrators’ decision.
After all, Fraser—the first case that recognized the vulgarity exception—involved a school assembly speech that had a rather elaborate sexual metaphor instead of explicitly vulgar or obscene words. And yet the Supreme Court had no reservation in holding that the school was not required to tolerate “lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct.” And it was up to the school to determine “what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate.” Because “[t]he pervasive sexual innuendo in Fraser’s speech was plainly offensive to both teachers and students—indeed to any mature person,” the school could discipline his speech despite the absence of explicitly obscene or vulgar words. And so Fraser demonstrates that a school may regulate speech that conveys an obscene or vulgar message even when the words used are not themselves obscene or vulgar.”
However, Judge John K. Bush strongly dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that the phrase was “purely political speech” and said he would have reversed the decision, emphasizing that the worn apparel did not cause any disruption in the school environment. Bush cautioned that suppressing political speech due to its offensive nature poses a threat to First Amendment protections:
“[T]he speech here—”Let’s Go Brandon!”—is neither vulgar nor profane on its face, and therefore does not fall into [the Fraser] exception. To the contrary, the phrase is purely political speech. It criticizes a political official—the type of expression that sits “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” No doubt, its euphemistic meaning was offensive to some, particularly those who supported President Biden. But offensive political speech is allowed in school, so long as it does not cause disruption under Tinker. As explained below, Tinker is the standard our circuit applied to cases involving Confederate flag T-shirts and a hat depicting an AR-15 rifle—depictions arguably more offensive than “Let’s Go Brandon!” …
The majority says the sweatshirts’ slogan is crude. But neither the phrase itself nor any word in it has ever been bleeped on television, radio, or other media. Not one of the “seven words you can never say on television” appears in it . Instead, the phrase has been used to advance political arguments, primarily in opposition to President Biden’s policies and secondarily to complain about the way liberal-biased media treats conservatives. It serves as a coded critique—a sarcastic catchphrase meant to express frustration, resentment, and discontent with political opponents. The phrase has been used by members of Congress during debate. And even President Biden himself, attempting to deflect criticism, “agreed” with the phrase.
We cannot lose sight of a key fact: the students’ sweatshirts do not say “F*ck Joe Biden.” Instead, they bear a sanitized phrase made famous by sports reporter Kelli Stavast while interviewing NASCAR race winner Brandon Brown at the Talladega Superspeedway. The reporter said the crowd behind them was yelling “Let’s go, Brandon!” She did not report the vulgar phrase that was actually being chanted. The Majority even concedes Stavast may have used the sanitized phrase to “put a fig leaf over the chant’s vulgarity.” That is telling….”
The students’ mother had challenged the ban, asserting it infringed on her children’s constitutional rights, particularly freedom of expression. The school district countered that the dress code’s prohibition against “messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane” gave administrators ample grounds to act.
The decision to uphold the ban on “Let’s Go Brandon” shirts is a direct assault on the fundamental right of free speech, which must be absolute, especially in a country built on such principles. Political speech, no matter how provocative or offensive to some, is protected and essential to all discourse.
