Earlier this month, 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. In D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, the court ruled that public schools may restrict on-campus speech reasonably viewed as lewd, indecent, or vulgar, without needing to show that the expression caused, or was likely to cause, a substantial disruption to school operations. The decision emphasized that schools have discretion to maintain civility and avoid vulgarity, even when the speech expresses a political viewpoint.
The case arose after two middle school students wore sweatshirts displaying “Let’s Go Brandon,” a phrase widely recognized as a euphemism for an expletive directed at President Biden. School officials asked the students to remove or cover the sweatshirts, citing a dress code prohibiting messages that are “lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane.” The students and their mother sued, arguing the slogan was political speech protected by the First Amendment and that the school engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
A federal district court sided with the school and, on appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The appellate court held that the district’s enforcement of its dress code policy complied with the First Amendment because the phrase, though euphemistic, clearly conveyed a vulgar message. The court held that:
- Schools may regulate speech that conveys an obscene or vulgar message even when the words used are not themselves obscene or vulgar.
- Administrators are entitled to reasonable deference in determining what is “vulgar,” so long as their enforcement is viewpoint neutral.
- Public schools may prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms by students even when those terms are being used to make a political point or comment on a matter of public concern. The court held that “when student speech is both vulgar and political, the school’s interest in prohibiting vulgarity predominates over the student’s interest in making a political statement in the language of their choosing.”
The court’s decision was not unanimous. One judge dissented, arguing that “Let’s Go Brandon” was neither vulgar nor profane, but rather purely political speech. And because the students’ political speech did not cause a substantial disruption to school district operations, the dissenting judge felt that the district’s interference with that speech violated the students’ constitutional rights.
However, at least for now, the Tri County decision reinforces that schools may restrict student expression reasonably understood as vulgar, even when that expression carries political overtones.
Sara Clark will discuss this case, along with other key 2025 school law decisions, during OSBA’s Capital Conference and Trade Show in November 17 at 10:30 a.m. For questions in the meantime, contact OSBA’s Division of Legal Services at 855-OSBA-LAW.