From the assembly hall to the classroom, the fight over what students can say – and wear – continues to define the boundaries of the First Amendment in America’s schools. The latest battle, now poised at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, isn’t over a shouted curse or an explicit image. It’s over two words: “Let’s Go Brandon.”
In 2022, two brothers in Howard City, Michigan, received the phrase on sweatshirts as a Christmas gift from their mother. They wore them to their middle school, part of Tri County Area Schools, to silently express their disapproval of President Joe Biden. School officials, citing a dress code that bans “lewd, indecent, vulgar or profane” messages, told the boys to change. Their mother sued. Lower courts sided with the school, ruling officials reasonably deemed the slogan vulgar based on its widely known origin as a substitute for a crude phrase against the president. Now, the Supreme Court is being asked to step in.
“This is a direct test of where we draw the line between political speech and prohibited vulgarity in an educational setting,” says constitutional scholar David Cole. “The court’s 1986 precedent gave schools broad leeway. This case asks if that leeway has stretched too far, potentially swallowing legitimate political commentary.”
The students’ appeal, backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), argues the phrase is a “staple of political discourse.” They note its use on the floor of Congress and on campaign trails. Its journey from a misunderstood chant at a 2021 NASCAR race to a political rallying cry is, they contend, the essence of coded political speech – and should be protected.
But the school district’s response, crafted by veteran Supreme Court advocate Lisa Blatt, warns of a “head-spinning” dilemma for administrators if the court weakens the standard. In her filing, Blatt listed over 200 examples of coded vulgarities, from innocent-seeming numbers to playful animal puns, to illustrate the impossible task of policing an ever-evolving lexicon of innuendo. “Almost all lewd speech comes in sanitized code,” Blatt wrote. She even posed a hypothetical: what about a shirt reading, “I don’t know who Brandon is but duck Trump”?
The legal split is clear. Two judges on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school’s decision. Judge John Nalbandian wrote that the “uncontroverted origin” of the slogan shows a “plainly vulgar meaning.” However, Judge John K. Bush dissented, comparing “Let’s Go Brandon” to the 1984 “Where’s the beef?” slogan – a phrase co-opted for political critique. He argued his colleagues were too deferential to school officials when it comes to political speech, calling the phrase a “cheeky” criticism of presidential leadership.
| Judges | Decision | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Judge John Nalbandian | Upheld school’s decision | “Plainly vulgar meaning” |
| Judge John K. Bush | Dissented | Compared to “Where’s the beef?” |
This case sits at a crowded intersection. Recently, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals about a “Come and Take It” hat featuring a rifle and a T-shirt stating “There are only two genders.” Each refusal leaves the foundational 1969 Tinker ruling—that student speech is protected unless it causes substantial disruption—intact but increasingly strained. The 1986 case, Bethel School District v. Fraser, which allowed schools to ban vulgar and lewd speech, is the specific precedent under the microscope now.
- The slogan “Let’s Go Brandon” is a potential euphemism.
- School authority faces challenges in moderating political speech.
- Precedents from 1969 set the foundations for student speech rights.
- Legal opinions reflect a split in judicial interpretations of vulgarity.
- The outcome may redefine the scope of political expression in schools.
- Politically charged apparel brings important questions into focus.
“The outcome will signal whether the Court believes school authority should adapt to the nuance of modern political slang or hold a firm line against any speech with a vulgar ancestor,” observes political analyst Rebecca Traister. “It’s a ruling that will resonate far beyond a middle school in Michigan.”
The Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will hear M.C. and R.C. v. Tri County Area Schools soon after its summer recess. For now, a simple sweatshirt remains a potent symbol of the enduring and complex debate over voice, virtue, and viewpoint in the places where America’s children learn.
