The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a Michigan school district’s decision to prohibit students from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts, ruling that the restriction did not violate the First Amendment.
The court found that the phrase, widely understood as a euphemism for a vulgar anti-Biden chant, could reasonably be interpreted by school administrators as vulgar or profane speech. Under Bethel School District v. Fraser, schools may prohibit student expression that is lewd, indecent, or offensive even if it also carries a political message. Because the administrators acted reasonably and without viewpoint discrimination, the court affirmed summary judgment for the district. Judge Bush dissented, arguing that the phrase was political—not vulgar—and should have been protected under Tinker v. Des Moines, which allows schools to regulate political speech only if it causes or threatens a material disruption.
Two middle school brothers wore sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon” to express disapproval of President Biden. Administrators required them to remove the sweatshirts under the school’s dress code, which barred vulgar or profane messages, though political clothing like “Make America Great Again” apparel was otherwise allowed.
The students sued, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights. The Sixth Circuit majority held that while students retain free-speech rights, schools have discretion to bar vulgarity—even euphemisms for profanity—because schools serve an educational function in promoting civility. The decision reinforces that under Fraser, schools may regulate student speech reasonably perceived as vulgar, regardless of its political content, and that the Tinker “substantial disruption” standard does not apply to such cases. The dissent warned that this broad reading risks allowing schools to suppress disfavored political viewpoints by labeling them as vulgar.
This case is important because it clarifies the boundary between protected political expression and school authority to restrict vulgar or profane speech, even when that speech carries a political message. It reinforces that under Fraser, schools may prohibit language reasonably viewed as vulgar without violating the First Amendment, narrowing the scope of Tinker’s protection for student speech.
Source: B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, et al., No. 24-1769 (6th Cir. Oct. 14, 2025)
