A recent federal appeals court decision has affirmed a Michigan school district’s right to prohibit students from wearing ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ shirts, dismissing arguments that this ban infringed upon First Amendment rights. The core of this controversy lies in a phrase that, while appearing innocuous, serves as a thinly veiled derogatory term for President Joe Biden, widely adopted by his critics.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued this crucial ruling after two students at Tri County Middle School were instructed to remove their shirts in 2022. Their mother contended that her sons’ constitutional right to free speech was violated. However, the court’s 2-1 majority supported the school, which maintained its policy was aimed at curbing vulgar language rather than suppressing political viewpoints.
When Vulgarity Outweighs Political Expression
Judges John Nalbandian and Karen Nelson Moore emphasized the paramount importance of maintaining a respectful and orderly atmosphere within schools. They articulated that in an educational setting, “vulgarity trumps politics,” clarifying that the shield of political speech does not grant students unlimited license to use offensive language, even when cleverly disguised as innuendo or euphemism. The school district further clarified its stance, stating that it does not generally forbid political statements; indeed, students had previously worn shirts supporting former President Trump or displaying “Make America Great Again” without any issues. Thus, the pivotal question for the court was whether ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ functioned as protected political commentary or merely as inappropriate language.
The Origins of ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ and the Legal Divide
The phrase ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ emerged in 2021 during a NASCAR broadcast, following a reporter’s misinterpretation of a crowd chant containing a crude insult directed at President Biden. It quickly evolved into a popular, coded expression of criticism among his opponents, allowing them to convey the offensive message without using explicit profanity. In a notable dissent, Judge John Bush argued that the phrase, despite its implications, should be considered protected political expression because it contained no overt sexual content or direct profanity. He posited that its oblique nature was intentional, and that the court had applied an incorrect legal standard in upholding the school’s ban.
This appeals court ruling brings into sharp focus the ongoing struggle to balance students’ constitutional rights to free speech against the vital need for educational institutions to enforce respectful conduct. The decision reinforces a school’s authority to restrict attire deemed vulgar, even when such attire carries an underlying political message, highlighting the difficult tightrope schools must walk to foster both open expression and a conducive learning environment.