“Let’s Go Brandon” T-Shirts Can Be Barred from Middle School on Grounds of Vulgarity

Before discussing Brandon, let’s first look at the case of Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser (1986). In this case, Matthew Fraser delivered a speech nominating a friend for high school vice-president:

I know a man who is firm—he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm—but most … of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.

Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he’ll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn’t attack things in spurts—he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally—he succeeds.

Jeff is a man who will go to the very end—even the climax, for each and every one of you.

So vote for Jeff for A.S.B. vice-president—he’ll never come between you and the best our high school can be.

Although the language used in this speech was not explicitly vulgar, the Court ruled that the school had the right to discipline Fraser for using “vulgar” speech. This decision was later applied in a recent case by Judge Paul Maloney in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools (W.D. Mich.) regarding a student wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt:

A school can prohibit students from wearing a shirt displaying profanity. The Supreme Court has previously supported this conclusion. The Court stated in Fraser that speech that is vulgar or profane is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection. The phrase “F*** Joe Biden” is considered profane and vulgar, therefore schools can restrict such apparel.

The court further explained that altering or censoring profane words does not make the message acceptable in a school setting. The interpretation of a message as profane allows school administrators to regulate what students wear on campus.

The court acknowledged that “Let’s Go Brandon” carries a political message, but ultimately linked it to a profane meaning. The court emphasized that hurling insults or vulgarities towards political figures does not constitute protected political discourse under the First Amendment.

Despite some deviations in the court’s reasoning, it generally applied the principles set forth in Fraser to the case at hand. The court also referenced a previous case, B.H. v. Easton Area School Dist. (3d Cir. 2013), which allowed schools to restrict speech that could be interpreted as lewd or profane, as long as it did not also comment on a political or social issue.

Ultimately, the court’s decision in this case aligns with the precedent set by Fraser and other related cases, demonstrating the balance between free speech and school regulation.