We previously discussed how schools were making students remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon.” I have argued that the shirts should be treated as protected speech. However, United States District Court Judge Christopher Boyko just delivered another blow to free speech in rejecting a claim for such protection, at least as the basis for injunctive relief, in Conrad v. Madison Local School Dist—Bd. of Ed.
In the prior Michigan case with the sweater shown below, Judge Paul Maloney in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools (W.D. Mich.) ruled that a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt could be the basis for punishment:
A school can certainly prohibit students from wearing a shirt displaying the phrase F*** Joe Biden. Plaintiffs concede this conclusion. Plaintiff must make this concession as the Supreme Court said as much in Fraser … (“As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, ‘the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket [which read {F*** the Draft}].'”) The relevant four-letter word is a swear word and would be considered vulgar and profane. The Sixth Circuit has written that “it has long been held that despite the sanctity of the First Amendment, speech that is vulgar or profane is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection.” …
If schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane. Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting. School administrators could prohibit a shirt that reads “F#%* Joe Biden.” School officials have restricted student from wearing shirts that use homophones for profane words … [such as] “Somebody Went to HOOVER DAM And All I Got Was This ‘DAM’ Shirt.” … [Defendants] recalled speaking to one student who was wearing a hat that said “Fet’s Luck” … [and asking] a student to change out of a hoodie that displayed the words “Uranus Liquor” because the message was lewd. School officials could likely prohibit students from wearing concert shirts from the music duo LMFAO (Laughing My F***ing A** Off) or apparel displaying “AITA?” (Am I the A**hole?)…. Courts too have recognized how seemingly innocuous phrases may convey profane messages. A county court in San Diego, California referred an attorney to the State Bar when counsel, during a hearing, twice directed the phrase “See You Next Tuesday” toward two female attorneys.
Again, I strongly disagreed with that decision. However, it has now been replicated in Ohio.
In his complaint, C.C. details how he was wearing a shirt with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” on November 25, 2024, underneath a flannel shirt. He alleges that teacher (and registered Democrat) Krista Ferini was bothered after spotting the shirt and ordered him to “button that up. I know what that means.” C.C. did so, but later, he was in a classroom that lacked air conditioning, so he took off his flannel shirt. That is when allegedly Ferini proceeded to write him up for the infraction. Principal Andrew Keeple then instructed C.C. to wear the flannel the rest of the day and never to wear the shirt to school again.
C.C. defied that order and wore the shirt again in January of 2025. While no one else complained, Ferini was reportedly irate and again wrote up C.C. Keeple declared that C.C. had once again violated the school’s dress code and that the shirt constituted a vulgar expression even though it contained no vulgar terms. He stated that further discipline would follow if C.C. continued to wear the shirt.
On March 24, 2025, C.C. wore the t-shirt again. While no one complained, he received a detention from Keeple. C.C. was disciplined on two other occasions for wearing the shirt.
The court ruled:
“While this case presents serious questions of student free speech versus a school’s interest in protecting students from vulgar and profane speech, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his high burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by clear and convincing evidence. While the D.A. case was on summary judgment and presented facts that are different than those before this Court, Defendant’s burden on summary judgment was a preponderance standard which is a lesser burden than Plaintiff’s here. Moreover, that case presented fact issues going to the reasonableness of the school’s interpretation. Here, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff acknowledges in his Verified Complaint that “Let’s Go Brandon” is a euphemism for F*#% Joe Biden. “In school speech cases where a school limits or restricts a student’s expression, courts must determine whether the school’s interpretation of the expression is reasonable.” “The student’s expression must be considered in the proper context but the student’s motivation or subjective intent is irrelevant.”
Given the strong interests of both sides, the unique characteristics of speech in a school setting, the finding by at least one court in this circuit that the school’s interpretation of the phrase as vulgar was reasonable, and the acknowledgment in this case by Plaintiff that the phrase is a vulgar euphemism, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to support injunctive relief. This does not mean Plaintiff cannot win on the merits of the claim as discovery will likely provide clearer evidence on the reasonableness of the interpretation. But given the high standard for injunctive relief, the Court finds against Plaintiff….”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.
This teacher was clearly put out over the political messaging of the shirt. However, we should encourage students to be politically aware and expressive. Moreover, if schools are allowed to extrapolate profane meaning from non-profane language, it is hard to see the limits on such censorship.
So what if students now wear “Let’s Go Krista” shirts? How many degrees of removal will negate the profane imputation. Does that mean that the use of “let’s go” in any shirt is now prohibited?
C.C. and his family should continue to litigate and, if necessary, appeal this worthy case in the interests of free speech for all students.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
District courts run the presidency and now overrule the ‘Supreme’ Court.
The Supreme Court settled the issue on student free speech long ago in the 1969 TINKER case. Students don’t lose their rights at the schoolhouse door, according to the supreme law of the land.”
Now ‘the supreme law of the land’ is what district court judges make up at the moment.
The Roberts Court let it get this way.
If we can’t trust the courts to protect rights then it is ultimately up to the people to do it. Run for the local school board, get on it, and fire superintendents, principals and teachers who ignore the supreme law of the land or you will lose your freedom bit by bit as is happening in Europe.
It’s a sacrifice, I know, but it isn’t Valley Forge.
“…you will lose your freedom bit by bit…”
“you will CONTINUE TO lose your freedom bit by bit” – FIFY
#. I’ll go back and read it later after the judge thinks vulgar and profane are punishable my head began to throb.
Under this ruling a t-shirt displaying the words from the Revolutionary War Gadsden flag which are:
DON’T TREAD ON ME
a school (or court) could find that what the words (the student) really meant were:
DON’T F*** WITH ME
and punish the student the same way. Is that what we have come to?
These are ridiculous rulings. This isn’t a slippery slope, it is a black diamond ski run. If school officials can infer a vulgar meaning of a phrase with absolutely no actual vulgar words being used, they can equally claim that ANY phrase is vulgar – from In “God We Trust” to “Good morning.” This needs to be overturned.
“Plaintiff acknowledges in his Verified Complaint that “Let’s Go Brandon” is a euphemism for F*#% Joe Biden.” It was a dumb legal move to acknowledge this, because it isn’t necessarily true. Although some may feel that it is a euphemism, it’s really a mockery of Kelli Stavast, NBC, and the corrupt, biased mainstream media.
Euphamisms do NOT mean exactly the same thing as what they are a euphamism for.
That is the CORE error in this decision.
The entire purpose of a euphemism is to REMOVE the shock and disruption of what the euphemism substitutes for.
SCOTUS allowed restrictions for speech that was disruptive.
It is arguable that F#$K has become so overused, commonplace that it has lost its power to disrupt. But even if that were not the case “Lets Go Brandon” is deliberately intended to communicate the same political sentiments while eliminating the vulgarity.
Lets Go Brandon is MORE popular than “F#$K Joe Biden” because people who would never say “F#$K Joe Biden” have no problem saying “Lets Go Brandon”
A euphemism is a gentler way of communicating the same thing.
Which is why the court is wrong.
Then no Nike shirts or any shirt that has logos or print on them. Do it right or dont do it at all.
Given their proclivities for “preferred pronouns,” a shirt saying “Just Do It” could be taken as a R- threat for those that identify as Its.
-Rabble
“a shirt saying “Just Do It” could be taken as a R- threat for those that identify as Its.”
Would that not depend on whether “do” is also perceived to be a euphemism in your example, and whether it is taken to be make the phrase synonymous with “murder” “it” or “fornicate with” “it”?
If Brandon shirts are illegal, only criminals will have Brandon shirts!
Perhaps there would be a market for shirts reading, “Let’s NOT go Trump.”
Not sure how I feel about this. If the ban on political claptrap is uniformly enforced–on teachers, too–why not? They ban religion completely in public schools.
On the other hand, if even one teacher is allowed to have rainbow flags in her classroom, any ban on other speech would be pure hypocrisy. “Let’s go Brandon” tee-shirts would be the perfect form of protest in that context.
The problem is that these are Government schools, and it is government restricting political speech.
Get Government out of schools and all these issues go away.
“They ban religion completely in public schools.”
That’s not necessarily a good thing. In our zeal for equality, we’ve ended up promoting atheism. But atheism is no more neutral than religion; it’s a belief system too. Elevating one over the other is unfair. This imbalance seeps into our broader national mindset, where even the Pledge of Allegiance is fading from schools.
We don’t need religious symbols in the classroom, but let’s be clear: the American flag is not a symbol in that same sense. It’s an embodiment of who we are. And recognizing that we are not gods is equally essential.
Schools should bring back regular readings of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We are diverse, but as citizens, we are united by a common civic culture. That’s what makes us Americans.
“If the ban on political claptrap is uniformly enforced–on teachers, too–why not? ”
If all analogous “speech” was banned, you might as well do away with all public school systems. Not that I would regard that as a tragedy of any kind…
This is by far the stupidest and most disingenuous piece of garbage to be posted on this blog.
IN LOCO PARENTIS !!!!!!!
Turley knows perfectly well what this means.
Teachers act in the place of parents.
School is not a free speech forum any more than home is a free speech forum for minor children.
Parents control the speech of children at home.
Teachers control the speech of children at school.
If the parents don’t approve of how teachers, acting in loco parentis, control the speech of their children, then the parents are perfectly free to take their children out of school.
The solution is to take the children out of the school, NOT to give minor children unbridled free speech rights in school.
The consequences of unbridled free speech for minors in schools are obviously absurd.
Calm down, it’s just a dang hoodie.
Jezzzzzzzzz some folks just love to freak out
If “it’s just a dang hoodie” then there should be no problem in asking the kid not to wear it.
However, the parents of this kid are trying to make a political point far beyond “it’s just a dang hoodie”.
If there is any “freaking out” going on here it is by the parents of this kid who are trying to make a political point at the expense of order and discipline in school.
Again calm down. You have Dem congress people cussing (F-bomb) every time they get near a microphone.
“Turley knows perfectly well what this means.
Teachers act in the place of parents.
School is not a free speech forum any more than home is a free speech forum for minor children.”
**************************************
In Loco forever! That’s why schools get to take most of the tax deduction for the kids and stay up with them when they’re sick and pay for their college tutition and inculcate them with any damn fool thing they want!!!
So what they’re an arm of the state. The kids’ rights end at the schoolhouse door. Damn Tinker!!
No, you are wrong and do not understand.
The kid’s rights do not end at the school door.
The free speech rights of minor children do not exist, so there are no rights that can end at the school door.
Minor children only have free speech rights to the extent that their parents allow.
Parents can and do control the rights of their minor children.
Teachers act in loco parentis, meaning that the teachers can control the speech of minor children, just as a parent can.
If the parent does not like the rules set by a teacher acting in loco parentis, then the only solution is to take the kid out of school.
Where does it say that in the US Constitution?
And if the student is 18-years old? He or she is entitled to their expression just like the teacher who hang a gay pride flag or Black Lives Matter sign.
If the kid is 18 and still living at home, then he is subject to his parents control and discipline.
At school the teachers are in loco parentis and therefore can control and discipline him as they see fit.
Why can’t you understand that if minor children have unfettered free speech rights at school, then there would be total chaos and no discipline whatsoever.
It is not a matter of Constitutional rights.
It is a matter of COMMON SENSE, something that is sadly lacking in the MAGA. world.
I can define what a woman is.
I know biological males should not be in women’s sports.
I know pornography should not be in elementary schools libraries.
I know supporting antisemitism is wrong.
I know race based and discrimination in university admission’s is wrong.
I know preferred pronouns is just plain dumb.
I support a secure border.
I support fair trade.
I support on-shoring jobs for Americans.
I support parents rights and school choice.
Seems pretty common sense to me.
Anonymous – calm down.
In loco parentis does NOT mean that government has absolutely all the rights of parents while kids are in school.
It merely means that government is responsible for the safety of the child while in its custody and can take actions without a parents permission to assure that safety.
The core issue in this case is whether children – teens in particular have free speech rights in a school. The courts have generally ruled that when the students excercise of free speech is disruptive – they do not have free speech – hence the decision in Tinker. Armbands that send a clear political message without disrupting class are allowable free speech in schools.
This judge fixated on prior cases involving profanity. Frankly profanity has becme so commonplace anymore that those cases are essentially moot because profanity is no longer disruptive. But even presuming that profanity is still not protected speech in schools, speech that allegedly alludes to profanity still is.
So the “Bong hits for Jesus” banner at a school parade was not free speech? Because it allegedly promoted drug use even though it was satirical rhetoric?
The sweatshirt brought about enough attention to disrupt the class. It stopped the teacher from continuing the class and asked the student to cover it up. When the student continued to defy the request it became a disciplinary issue. Turley often cites school rules that need to be enforced and student punished for violating them.
The “Bong hits for Jesus” case was decided wrongly.
Regardless, as YOU note – it promoted conduct that was illegal.
Even as satire it STILL promoted illegal conduct.
Further the Bong hits for Jesus case was NOT about disruption of class.
It was about advocacy for criminal acts outside of class.
Frankly it should have been dismissed for multiple reasons.
Morris was over 18 and therefore had ADULT Free speech rights.
The speech was outside of class, and the claim that the banner reflected on the school is both weak and irrelevant.
Morris is also a reflection of a long string of SCOTUS errors regarding schools that has extended the power of the school over students all the way to the students front door.
That is wrong. The moment the student is out of the custody of the school or agents of the school such as bus drivers, in loco parentis terminates.
“The sweatshirt brought about enough attention to disrupt the class. It stopped the teacher from continuing the class and asked the student to cover it up. ”
That is NOT the standard for infringement on free speech.
Disruption is NOT established by being offended.
Frankly YOUR argument is part of why it is protected speech.
We protect speech BECAUSE some people take offense.
The sweatshirt did NOT disrupt the class – the TEACHER did in her choice to take offense.
The Student did not get up in class and start shouting “FJB”.
There is no difference between the sweathshirt and the armbands in tinker.
Both are PASSIVE – they do NOT disrupt class.
For passive speech to be disruptive it must be vulgar or profane.
If the shirt had said “Make Love not War” it would have been protected.
If it had said “F#$k not war” it would not.
“When the student continued to defy the request it became a disciplinary issue. ”
The student defied an unconstitutional request – that is NOT a disciplinary matter that is misconduct on the part of the school.
I would note the school can NOT allow some political speech and not others.
Tinker already establishes that Passive political speech in schools can not be infringed on.
A “lets go Brandon” shirt is:
Political speech.
Not vulgar or profane.
It is therefore the MOST protected form of speech.
It is the MOST protected specifically BECAUSE we can not have fragile teachers banning speech that offends THEIR political values.
Schools are NOT a place for political indoctrination by government.
“Turley often cites school rules that need to be enforced and student punished for violating them.”
Calling something a “rule” does not grant it impramatur to override the first amendment.
My concern is that the interpretation of what is offensive or disruptive is entirely subjective. Moreover, the problem could be easily avoided by a simple dress code requiring polo shirts of a particular color with no writing or logos. The school is spending an enormous amount of money on litigating a problem that it could have easily avoided.
This court has made it subjective – but the law does NOT allow for subjectivity.
For a school to ban PASSIVE speech – slogans on Shirts, the slogan must be profane or vulgar.
They could ban “F#$K Joe Biden” but not “Lets Go Brandon”
One issue that Turley misses is that “Lets Go Brandon” is MORE than A euphamism for “F#$K Joe Biden”. It is MORE popular than FJB – specifically because it is NOT vulgar or profane.
It expresses the same disdain for Joe Biden as FJB without the vulgarity and therefore people who would never say FJB can chant LGB
You are missing an obvious point. If the parents approve of the “Let’s Go Brandon” shirt, then the teacher has no right to overrule their permission. Likewise, if a parent does not want their child brainwashed, I mean indoctrinated, I mean taught about LGBTQ++, then the teacher (and school) has no right to expose them to this poison.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_loco_parentis
“In loco parentis is a Latin term meaning “in [the] place of a parent” or “instead of a parent.” The term refers to a common law doctrine which denotes the legal responsibility of some person or organization to perform SOME of the functions or responsibilities of a parent .”
Please note the word SOME. Schools are not co-parents.
They are responsible for the safety of students in their care while parents are not present.
They do NOT have the parents right to dictate the allowable speech and values of students.
It is YOU that are being stupid and disengenuous.
“If the parents don’t approve of how teachers, acting in loco parentis, control the speech of their children, then the parents are perfectly free to take their children out of school.”
FALSE. Every state has compulsory education requirements, typically up to age 16. Parents my be nominally free to find an alternative solution that qualifies under state requirements, but finding a nearby alternative public school that does not contradict their principles and beliefs re child rearing may well be impossible, and enrolling their children in private school, hiring a tutor, or home schooling may well be financially infeasible.
I like this student. Hopefully he will keep at it and slay the dragons before him. The judge and school administrators not so much. Are they teachers or commissars? Sometimes it is difficult to tell.
Lets Go Brandon!
Didn’t the Supreme court rules on this before?
This judge should know better.
Slay? Who’s gonna foot the bill. You? You write senile nonsense.
Anonymous 10:04 – Tweedle Dee
GEB
GEB
The Black Russians have obviously addled your thinking.
School is not a free speech forum for minor children.
Teachers act in loco parentis, and can control children’s speech, just as parents can control their children’s speech at home.
If the parents don’t like it, the solution is to take their children out of the school.
If children in school had unbridled free speech rights in school, then there would be total chaos and a complete collapse of discipline.
Anonymous- 10:07am
— TweedleDum—
GEB
If only litigation were free. Who’s paying for the layers required to take this to court? How does this school district justify the expense? Once again, we have a school district that is unaccountable to the taxpayers.
The school should give every student a t-shirt of their choice: “Let’s go Brandon” or “Orange Man Bad”. This particular teacher should be given a “I’m a Proud Snowflake” shirt to wear all day long, every school day (and twice on Sundays). Sheesh.
You are suggesting that students (and at least one teacher) be forced to wear one particular shirt with specific wording (not part of a uniform); exactly the opposite of free speech.
“The school should give every student a t-shirt of their choice…”
You left out the “Taxation is Theft” T-shirt…
As we all know the meaning of “Let’s Go Brandon!” I could see and understand the schools position.
However, a ““Let’s Go Krista” shirts,” would be amusing to see. Just not on school grounds.
While I’m a strong supporter of free speech, I side with school administration on this. Yes, the teacher was “triggered,” and probably would be by a plain red hat, but the student obviously was pushing and wanting to be obnoxious. I believe the school should be able to establish and maintain a learning environment. The student was asked not to wear the t-shirt, kept doing so, apparently out of spite.
My bet is the student wore his slogan to ‘trigger’ people as that is not an unusual habit in that age group or even beyond. And one would expect a teacher for that age group to be a little bit better mentally insulated against such behavior.
If you had true freedom of speech, such triggering events would likely be eventually minimized/fade. As people age, the vast majority begin to realize that the words and phrases used by the speaker say more about the speaker than anything else. Look up almost any video of Jamaal Bowman to get the point.
EV
Have you seen what the teachers have done to our schools. The issue is them, not the kids.
Home Schooling eliminates Woke Radical Left Teaches/Union and Administrators. I am a strong believer in Home Schooling. Our children went on and received several degrees and jobs. They are independent.
Believe what you want, but I don’t believe you.
It does not eliminate them, it fortifies them.
Once leftists drive conservative kids out of public school into home school, they then stop funding for home schools alienating them, then not allow them into public schools.
Home schools are not the correct response to leftist indoctrination. Take back public schools is the correct response.
This is so stupid and another reason to homeschool your kids.
Another reactionary. Fight for your schools, don’t let leftist dictate education / school policy.
shannonketchersid,
Unless and until we can get radical, leftists teachers who are more interested in not teaching but indoctrination, homeschooling is the future.
I understand more restrictive rules in a school environment. They know when they are being provocative and the school should be there for learning. Now, if a “Resist” shirt is ok and “Let’s Go Brandon” isn’t; there is an issue!
We can have third graders reading books on overt sexuality with graphic depictions, but we can’t have high schoolers wearing shirts with clever political speech.
try that with a Martin Luther King hoody? Not one Judge in the country would ban that…would they?
HECK we FORCE a holiday for that and june 19th…
I don’t dislike MLK…but he isn’t worthy of a holiday and Juneteenth is a celebration that young black men are 3% of society but commit 65+ of MURDERS…mostly of their fellow blacks.
You sound liker a racist. because you are a racist.
Does not sound like a racist to me.
Are only left wing nuts allowed to discuss MLK ?
I think MLK was a great man – and those on the left should actually read him – because he opposed alot of your identity nonsense. He dreamed of people being judged on their character not their identity.
But MLK also had clay feet – like Most great men. Like many of our founding fathers.
This country has produced many great men – MLK among them – they do not all have a government holiday. Most of them are more deserving of that then MLK.
Overall we have far too many government holidays.
There is nothing racist about saying that MLK does not warrant his own holiday.
Few if any great men do.
When you rant constantly about racism – you are likely the racist.
but a climate change, HOPE, etc shirts are fine
We need to remove judges who get overruled!
My suggestion has been for a while now: Three times overrulled, get fired.
LOL that would sure make a mess of the 9th.
LET’S GO BRANDON!!! SUE ME!
Did you not understand that the boy wearing the shirt is suing because of the punishment the school meted out for him wearing the shirt?
DUH!