Michigan middle schoolers banned for wearing "Let's Go Brandon" sweatshirts are fighting back, claiming their First Amendment rights were trampled. Two unnamed students from Tri County Area Schools sued after administrators deemed the phrase -- born from a cheeky NASCAR chant -- a veiled jab at former President Joe Biden. The case now sits before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges are grappling with whether schools can censor such political zingers, as Just the News reports.
The students, backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argue that their sweatshirts were harmless political speech, protected under the 1969 Tinker precedent, which upheld Vietnam War protests in schools. Last summer, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney sided with the school, citing a 1986 Fraser ruling that allows curbing lewd or indecent speech. This clash of precedents has the appeals court in a legal tug-of-war, with free speech hanging in the balance.
Tri County’s dress code bans "lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane" phrases, and school lawyer Annabel Shea insisted "Let's Go Brandon" implies profanity. Yet, the school oddly permits Make America Great Again hats, suggesting selective enforcement of political expression. Such inconsistency reeks of woke administrators cherry-picking which messages get a pass.
Judge John Bush, a Donald Trump appointee, wasn’t buying the school’s argument during a recent hearing in the case, quipping, "No one was advocating having sex with the president." He compared "Let's Go Brandon" to Confederate flag displays, which courts have protected as nondisruptive. Bush’s jab exposes the absurdity of equating a sly political slogan with graphic indecency.
Judge Karen Nelson Moore, a Bill Clinton nominee, scoffed at using congressional speeches -- where "Let's Go Brandon" has echoed -- as a benchmark for school-appropriate speech. Her skepticism misses the point: if politicians can sling the phrase on the House floor, why can’t kids wear it on a hoodie? The double standard is glaring.
Judge John Nalbandian, the apparent swing vote, questioned whether schools should have "unlimited discretion" to label speech profane. He noted that "profanity trumps the political nature of the speech," but seemed uneasy with administrators acting as speech police. His indecision could tip the scales in this case.
The 1969 Tinker case set a high bar for schools to restrict political speech, requiring proof of disruption. Conor Fitzpatrick, the students’ lawyer, argued that no reasonable official could call "Let's Go Brandon" profane under Tinker’s protections. He’s right -- schools shouldn’t be in the business of sanitizing witty political barbs.
In contrast, the 1986 Fraser precedent lets schools regulate lewd speech, like the sexually explicit metaphor in a campaign speech. Judge Maloney leaned on Fraser to justify the sweatshirt ban, claiming "Let's Go Brandon" carries a profane undertone. That’s a stretch, considering the phrase itself is clean enough for prime-time TV.
The 1971 Cohen case, where a man’s "f— the draft" jacket was protected, and a 9th Circuit ruling against banning "scab" buttons, bolster the students’ case. These precedents show courts often shield edgy political speech, even when it offends. Tri County’s ban feels like a woke overreach, punishing kids for a clever dig at Biden.
Shea, the school’s lawyer, claimed Tri County has no issue with political expression, just implied profanity. But allowing MAGA hats while banning "Let's Go Brandon" suggests a bias against anti-Biden sentiment. This selective censorship undermines the school’s neutral stance.
Fitzpatrick fired back, saying the school "ignored centuries of history" in using expurgated profanity, like radio edits or "h-e-double hockey sticks." His point is sharp: society has long softened curses for public consumption, so why punish kids for it? The school’s logic feels like a flimsy excuse to silence dissent.
Nalbandian floated qualified immunity for administrators, suggesting they might dodge liability due to murky precedents. Even if the ban violated rights, he mused, it wasn’t "obvious" under existing law. This hedging could let school officials off the hook, even if they overstepped.
The "Let’s Go Brandon" phrase, born at a NASCAR race, has become a cultural lightning rod, even inspiring the Biden campaign’s "Dark Brandon" meme. Its widespread use, from Congress to social media, shows it’s more political satire than profane outburst. Schools banning it risk looking like humorless enforcers of progressive dogma.
The 1978 Pacifica precedent, which lets the FCC regulate indecent broadcasts like George Carlin’s "7 Words" monologue, was mentioned but feels irrelevant here. "Let's Go Brandon" isn’t a string of expletives -- it’s a coded jab. Conflating the two is a legal sleight-of-hand to justify censorship.
The 6th Circuit’s ruling, expected in the near future could clarify where schools draw the line on political speech. For now, these Michigan students are caught in a battle over free expression, with woke administrators on one side and First Amendment defenders on the other. The outcome will test whether schools can stifle clever political speech under the guise of propriety.
