The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that “vulgarity trumps politics” in schools, upholding a ban on “Let’s Go Brandon” apparel and setting a significant precedent for how coded political messages are judged in educational environments, igniting a national debate on student free speech.
A federal appeals court has delivered a pivotal ruling in a case centered on student free speech, backing a Michigan school district’s decision to ban “Let’s Go Brandon” shirts. This decision, handed down by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reignites a long-standing debate about the boundaries of expression within educational settings, particularly when political messages are cloaked in euphemism.
The case originated from Tri County Middle School in Sand Lake, Michigan, in 2022. The mother of two boys argued that her sons’ First Amendment rights were violated when school officials instructed them to remove shirts bearing the “Let’s Go Brandon” phrase. The school district, however, maintained that its policy prohibited vulgar messages, not political ones, and the appeals court ultimately agreed in a 2-1 opinion.
The Genesis of a Slogan: Understanding ‘Let’s Go Brandon’
To fully grasp the court’s decision, it’s essential to understand the controversial phrase itself. The slogan “Let’s Go Brandon” emerged in October 2021 from a NASCAR race. During a post-race interview with driver Brandon Brown, a crowd was heard chanting “F*** Joe Biden.” A television sports reporter, seemingly mishearing or attempting to reframe the chant, stated that the fans were shouting, “Let’s Go, Brandon.”
The phrase quickly evolved into a coded political slogan, adopted by critics of then-President Joe Biden as a G-rated substitute for the explicit obscenity. This deliberate euphemism became central to the legal arguments, as it allowed for an anti-Biden message without using overt profanity.
The Appeals Court’s Stance: Vulgarity Trumps Politics
The majority opinion, delivered by Judges John Nalbandian and Karen Nelson Moore, articulated a clear stance: “In the schoolhouse, vulgarity trumps politics. And the protection for political speech doesn’t give a student carte blanche to use vulgarity at school — even when that vulgarity is cloaked in innuendo or euphemism.” This statement underscores the court’s view that the underlying vulgarity of the phrase, even if indirect, provided sufficient grounds for the school to intervene.
The school district presented evidence that it did not prohibit all political messages, noting that students were permitted to wear clothing with phrases like “Make America Great Again” or other messages supporting former President Donald Trump. This detail aimed to counter allegations of viewpoint discrimination, suggesting the ban was based purely on the perceived vulgarity of the “Let’s Go Brandon” phrase.
The Dissenting Voice: A Question of Legal Standard
Judge John Bush dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that an incorrect legal standard had been applied. He emphasized the euphemistic nature of the phrase, stating, “The phrase at issue here is a euphemism for political criticism. It contains no sexual content, no graphic imagery, and no actual profanity. To the extent that it implies an offensive phrase, it does so obliquely — by design.” Judge Bush’s argument highlights the core tension: does a euphemism, even one widely understood to imply profanity, warrant the same censorship as explicit vulgarity?
The Broader Legal Landscape: Connecting to Tinker v. Des Moines
This case, while distinct, inevitably draws parallels to historical precedents in student free speech. The landmark Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), established that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker famously allowed students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, as long as their expression did not substantially disrupt school operations. You can read more about the Tinker v. Des Moines decision at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.
The Michigan appeals court ruling introduces a nuance to Tinker, suggesting that even politically motivated speech can be curtailed if it is deemed vulgar, even in its euphemistic form. This raises questions about how schools and courts will continue to define “disruption” and “vulgarity” in an era of increasingly coded and context-dependent online language.
Community Reaction and Implications
The ruling has sparked varied reactions among free speech advocates, parents, and educators. Organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which represented the students in their initial lawsuit against the school district, have strongly advocated for the protection of such political speech.
FIRE attorneys, like Conor Fitzpatrick, have asserted that “criticism of the president is core political speech protected by the First Amendment” and that schools should not “censor speech just because it might cause someone to think about a swear word.” This perspective highlights the concern that allowing schools to ban euphemistic phrases could open the door to broader viewpoint discrimination.
Conversely, those who support the school’s decision argue for the necessity of maintaining an orderly and respectful learning environment, where thinly veiled profanity, regardless of its political intent, can be reasonably regulated. The Associated Press has reported extensively on the legal battles surrounding this phrase, providing context on its usage and impact across different venues. For more details on the evolution of the ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ phrase, refer to reports by The Associated Press.
What This Means for Student Expression Moving Forward
This ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sets an important precedent for schools within its jurisdiction (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee). It suggests that the line between protected political speech and regulatable vulgarity is not solely drawn by explicit language, but can extend to commonly understood euphemisms. For students, educators, and parents, this decision signals a continued need for clarity and careful consideration regarding what constitutes appropriate expression in the school environment.
As digital communication increasingly relies on coded language and memes, the challenge for courts and school administrations will be to balance fundamental free speech rights with the responsibility to foster a conducive and respectful educational atmosphere. The debate over “Let’s Go Brandon” shirts is more than just about a phrase; it’s about defining the future of student free speech in a complex and rapidly evolving communicative landscape.
