Supreme Court Leaves Michigan School’s “Let’s Go Brandon” Sweatshirt Ban Intact

On the opening day of its new term, the United States Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in *D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools*. The petition sought review of a Sixth Circuit decision that upheld a Michigan middle-school district’s prohibition of sweatshirts bearing the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon.” By refusing the appeal, the Court left in place the lower-court ruling that schools may ban apparel whose meaning is “clearly vulgar,” even when the message also conveys political criticism. No justices issued a dissent.

New York Post

The slogan “Let’s Go Brandon” emerged in October 2021 after a NASCAR crowd chanted a profanity aimed at President Joe Biden, which a reporter mischaracterized as support for driver Brandon Brown. The phrase quickly became a coded insult used by conservatives. In 2022 the two brothers—identified in court filings as D.A. (then in sixth grade) and X.A. (then in eighth)—wore sweatshirts with the slogan to Tri County Middle School, located about 30 miles north of Grand Rapids, Michigan. School staff asked them to remove the garments, citing the district’s policy against profanity.

New York Post

The boys’ mother filed suit in 2023, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs argued that the slogan contains no explicit profanity and therefore constitutes protected political speech. The district argued that the phrase functions as a euphemism for a vulgar insult and that *Fraser* (1986) permits schools to prohibit such speech.

The Hill

A federal district court ruled for the school, holding that the phrase’s “commonly understood meaning” is vulgar and therefore unprotected.

TND - The National Desk

• Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said, “Criticism of the president is core political speech protected by the First Amendment.”

New York Post

• “It might be tempting to dismiss (the student’s) words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein,” — Justice Stephen Breyer

CNN

• “Criticism of the president is core political speech protected by the First Amendment,” — FIRE

New York Post

The decision leaves unresolved how schools must balance *Fraser*’s prohibition on vulgar speech with *Tinker*’s protection for non-disruptive political expression. With roughly 50 million K-12 public-school students nationwide, the precedent influences future disputes over apparel, memes, and other coded political messages. The Court’s refusal to hear the case signals a reluctance to revisit *Fraser* at this time, preserving administrators’ latitude to interpret vulgarity in the school environment.

The Hill

No further Supreme Court action is scheduled on this issue. The plaintiffs may pursue other appellate avenues, but any future challenge will likely confront the same *Fraser* framework unless the Court elects to revisit the doctrine in a later case.

CNN