DATE: December 10, 2024
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI), in collaboration with Dhillon Law Group and Young America’s Foundation, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to protect the free speech rights of two minor students and their mother. The case challenges a lower court’s decision upholding a Michigan school district’s ban on clothing with the slogan “Let’s Go Brandon,” a phrase widely recognized as a political expression of distaste for President Joe Biden.
The case originated when the students received “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts from their mother for Christmas and wore them to school. School officials forced the students to remove the sweatshirts, claiming the phrase was profane. The issue escalated when other students began wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” apparel or writing “LGB” on their hands in support. In response, the school district implemented a formal ban on the slogan, citing its purported vulgarity. After the district refused to rescind the ban, the students and their mother filed a lawsuit.
In its decision, the lower court sided with the school district, analyzing the case under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), which governs vulgar and profane speech. The court concluded that “Let’s Go Brandon” constituted profanity rather than political speech. This approach diverged from the greater protections established in the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. (1969), which requires schools to demonstrate that speech would cause a substantial disruption before they may restrict it.
The amicus brief filed by HLLI, Dhillon Law Group, and Young America’s Foundation underscores that the lower court’s reliance on the Bethel standard was incorrect. Because “Let’s Go Brandon” is political speech, a core First Amendment right, it should have been analyzed under Tinker. Without evidence of substantial disruption, government employees have no authority to prohibit it in schools.
“Political speech is one of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Permitting school administrators to restrict political expression as “profanity by implication”, reopens the door to viewpoint discrimination,” said Adam Schulman, Senior Attorney at HLLI. “This case is an opportunity to reaffirm and protect the rights of students to express political opinions in school.”
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in this case will have significant implications for student speech rights and the boundaries of permissible expression in schools.
For more information about this case, please see our amicus brief, our case website, or contact the attorney(s) below:
Adam Schulman, Senior Attorney, 610-457-0856, adam.schulman@hlli.org.
* * *
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute is a public interest law firm dedicated to defending civil liberties, countering government overreach, and fighting class action abuse.
As a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, HLLI relies on support from individuals and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited government. To learn more, visit http://www.hlli.org.