Sixth Circuit Affirms “Let’s Go Brandon” Decision

On October 14, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decisions are binding in Michigan, upheld a ruling allowing public schools to censor student speech reasonably determined to be vulgar. B.A. v Tri Co Area Schs, No. 24-1769 (CA 6, 2025). As reported in our September 26, 2024 edition of School Law Notes, this case concerned two students who, on different occasions, were directed by school officials to remove sweatshirts bearing the slogan “Let’s Go Brandon.” Critics of President Biden used the slogan to express the message “F*** Joe Biden.” Both students complied with the school officials’ directives, and neither was disciplined for wearing the sweatshirt.

The two students later sued the school and school officials, alleging they were deprived of their First Amendment free speech rights. The trial court sided with the school district and found that school officials reasonably interpreted the “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan as profane and a violation of the school’s dress code, even though the slogan did not literally include profanity. School officials therefore acted reasonably to require the students to remove the apparel.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit considered two key issues: (1) whether a phrase that lacks explicit profanity can still be treated as vulgar, and (2) whether school officials may restrict student political speech that carries a vulgar message. In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Sixth Circuit held that while students retain free speech rights at school, those rights are not absolute. Schools may prohibit speech that is lewd, vulgar, or offensive – even if it expresses a political viewpoint.

The court emphasized that the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” is widely understood to mean “F*** Joe Biden,” and that it was reasonable for school officials to interpret it as vulgar, despite the absence of explicit profanity. The decision relied on longstanding precedent, particularly Bethel Sch Dist v Fraser, which allows schools to regulate student speech that is plainly offensive or inappropriate for the educational environment.

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling highlights the sometimes delicate balance school officials must strike between student expression and school authority. While the First Amendment robustly protects political speech, this case affirms that school officials may draw the line when such speech is reasonably perceived to be vulgar, even if it is cloaked in coded or euphemistic language.