Sixth Circuit Rules In Favor Of School Ban On “Let’s Go Brandon” Sweatshirts

Authored by Joanthan Turley,

We previously discussed the case of B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, where two middle schoolers in Michigan were prevented from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. However, a divided panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that the school district was within its authority to ban the sweatshirts.  The decision, in my view, is wrong, and this could prove a viable case for Supreme Court review, assuming that the plaintiffs will not seek an en banc review.

“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”

“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.

In this case, an assistant principal (Andrew Buikema) and a teacher (Wendy Bradford) “ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts” for allegedly breaking the school dress code. However, other students were allowed to don political apparel with other political causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”

The district dress code states the following:

“Students and parents have the right to determine a student’s dress, except when the school administration determines a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. The dress code may be enforced by any staff member.”

The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”

The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane.

To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words. Nevertheless, “D.A.” was stopped in the hall by Buikema and told that his “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”

Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in holding that, under the “vulgarity exception,” the action was constitutional:

“The Constitution doesn’t hamstring school administrators when they are trying to limit profanity and vulgarity in the classroom during school hours. Again, students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” But neither are school administrators powerless to prevent student speech that the administrators reasonably understand to be profane or vulgar. And so “the First Amendment gives a … student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket.” Schools are charged with teaching students the “fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.” And avoiding “vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse” is one such value. After all, “[e]ven the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.” …

[A] euphemism is not the same as the explicitly vulgar or profane word it replaces. “Heck” is not literally the same word as “Hell.” But the word’s communicative content is the same even if the speaker takes some steps to obscure the offensive word. The plaintiffs concede that a school could prohibit students from saying “Fuck Joe Biden” because “[k]ids can’t say ‘fuck’ at school.” And yet they insist that the euphemism “Let’s Go Brandon” is distinct—even though many people understand that slogan to mean “Fuck Joe Biden.” So it’s not clear that the school administrators acted unreasonably in determining that the euphemism still conveyed that vulgar message.

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.”

In fairness to the majority, courts have been highly deferential to school officials in these areas, particularly in the Sixth Circuit. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” That may be true, but apparently, they can shed their sweatshirts in Michigan.

Judge John Bush offered a spirited dissent, stating:

“[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….”

Judge Bush is correct. The opinion constitutes a significant infringement on the free speech rights of students. I readily admit that I am critical of some past cases, including Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Juneau-Douglas High School could suspend student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. In my view, the courts have honored Tinker largely in the breach in such cases.

This case, however, involves a sweatshirt without a single vulgar term and a clear political message. It reflects a difference in the default position of both sides. The default in close cases for the majority is with the school’s authority to curtail speech, while the default of Judge Bush is with free speech. As Judge Bush noted:

“Because even offensive political speech demands First Amendment protection, it is inappropriate to delegate unfettered discretion to school officials to characterize the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon!” as vulgar and then regulate it outside the bounds of Tinker. The majority essentially gives school administrators boundless discretion—akin to “I know it when I see it,” Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring)—to redefine facially non-vulgar speech as vulgarity in order to ban it.”

The plaintiffs should appeal this opinion. They have a strong dissent from Judge Bush and a strong free speech case to make either to the full court or the Supreme Court.

Here is the opinion: B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools