Staff Reports
The Supreme Court this week declined to take up the case of two Michigan middle‑school boys who were ordered to remove “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. That denial leaves in place a Sixth Circuit ruling that allowed Tri County Area Schools to treat the slogan as vulgar and to remove it — a development with real consequences for student speech and the First Amendment in that circuit.
What the Supreme Court’s denial means
The Supreme Court’s order refusing review does not mean the justices agreed with the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning. It does mean the Sixth Circuit decision now stands as binding law in that federal circuit. In plain terms: school officials in the Sixth Circuit can point to this case if they want to treat the political catchphrase “Let’s Go Brandon” as the kind of vulgar speech that violates a school dress code. The students, represented by FIRE, have exhausted their Supreme Court remedy for now.
Why the legal fight mattered: Tinker vs. Fraser
The case turned on a clash between two old Supreme Court precedents. Under Tinker, political speech by students is protected unless it causes real disruption. Under Fraser, schools can restrict lewd or vulgar speech. The Sixth Circuit chose Fraser here, saying administrators could “reasonably interpret” the slogan as vulgar. Judge John K. Bush’s dissent warned that swapping Tinker for Fraser when politics is involved hands principals a tool to silence viewpoints they don’t like — a tempting shortcut for censorious administrators.
Practical impact on student speech and school policy
Read plainly, this decision gives wide latitude to school administrators inside the Sixth Circuit to translate a cleaned‑up phrase back into its crude origin and punish the student for the administrator’s translation. There were no fights, no disruptions, no ruined classes in this case — just two kids wearing shirts with a political joke. If schools can police euphemisms because grownups don’t like the joke, then student political expression is on a slippery slope toward being neutered in the name of decorum.
Conclusion: a missed chance for clarity
The Supreme Court passed on a chance to draw a clearer line between genuine vulgarity and political speech disguised as a gag. Conservatives who care about free speech should be uncomfortable with administrators acting as official translators of private jokes. If we want robust student speech — even speech that adults find rude — courts should make schools prove disruption, not let principals invent profanity. For now, parents and free‑speech groups will have to push back at the school board and in state courts, because the federal high court has stepped aside.
