Court supports school’s prohibition of ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ clothing in free speech argument

Court Upholds School’s Decision on ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Clothing

On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals supported a previous ruling that a school district in Michigan did not infringe on the rights of two students when they were made to take off sweatshirts with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon.”

The situation involved two brothers, both middle schoolers at the time, who wore the sweatshirts featuring the slogan. School administrators asked them to remove the garments, stating that the phrase is a euphemism for profanity, as pointed out by Tri-County Middle School Vice Principal Andrew Buikema.

The court noted that the school “reasonably understood” the expression to be vulgar. This ruling was based on a specific interpretation that the phrase carries a negative connotation.

This expression originated from a 2021 NASCAR event in Alabama. Following the race, the crowd began chanting something less favorable about then-President Joe Biden, but a reporter mistakenly reported it as “Let’s go, Brandon,” while interviewing professional driver Brandon Brown.

The phrase quickly morphed into a means of expressing criticism towards the President. The appellate court mentioned that the reporter might have misheard the chant or perhaps was attempting to disguise the vulgarity.

The court’s opinion stated: “School officials reasonably considered the slogan, despite its political nature, to be vulgar speech that could be rightly banned in schools. Demanding students to remove such clothing doesn’t breach their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.”

Interestingly, this decision was not unanimous; it was a 2-1 ruling. Justice John Bush disagreed with the majority, arguing that wearing politically themed clothing is fundamental to civic engagement. He suggested that the school’s intervention abruptly halted the boys’ “civic activities.”

In his dissenting remarks, Justice Bush emphasized that the problematic phrases merely hint at political critiques without any real profanity or graphic content. They imply offensiveness in a nuanced manner, he noted.