MADISON TOWNSHIP — Is a “Let’s Go Brandon” t-shirt constitutionally protected speech or vulgar language inappropriate for a classroom setting?
That may be up for the federal court to decide.
In March, a parent filed a civil suit against the Madison Local School District after his son was allegedly disciplined for repeatedly wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” t-shirt to school.
In an affidavit, the boy said middle school assistant principal Andrew Kepple told him not to wear the t-shirt to school again. But he did a number of times and received an after-school detention.
The civil suit claims the district violated the student’s constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case was filed in Ohio’s U.S. Northern District Court and lists the district, Kepple, the district’s five school board members and a Madison teacher as defendants.
“The school district is violating this student’s constitution rights by punishing him for expressing his opinion on politics,” said the family’s attorney, Joshua Brown.
The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, funds to cover attorney fees and actual damages in an amount deemed appropriate.
Madison Supt. Rob Peterson told Richland Source he was could not comment on active litigation.
Boy was allegedly asked “Do you like offending people?”
The boy alleged in his affidavit he had worn the “Let’s Go Brandon” t-shirt several times during the previous school year and no one had responded negatively.
He claimed that changed when he wore the t-shirt, along with a flannel button down shirt, to school in November. The boy’s affidavit claims at the beginning of the school day, a teacher instructed him to button up his flannel, telling him, “I know what that means.”
The boy said he complied with the instructions, but later removed his flannel in the band room because “the room was hot and does not have air conditioning.”
The boy claimed the same teacher who told him to cover up the shirt later saw him without his flannel and “wrote him up.” Later that day, he was allegedly called to Kepple’s office, where the assistant principal told him not to wear a t-shirt with that content again.
The boy claimed he wore the t-shirt again in January and no one at school seemed to mind, except for the same teacher who wrote him up.
The boy alleged the teacher asked him, “Do you like offending people?” and he responded with, “That’s not my problem. Nobody has to read my shirt.”
In a separate affidavit, the boy’s father wrote Kepple told him the shirt violated the school’s dress code and that if his son continued to violate school dress code, he would be disciplined further.
School officials said ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ is “code” for something else
The boy’s father claimed he met with Kepple in person shortly afterward to discuss “what the problem was” with his son’s “personal expression.” During that meeting, Kepple allegedly told the boy’s father that “Let’s Go Brandon” is “code” for something else.
The boy’s father said he told Kepple he did not interpret it that way and that he would not instruct his son to refrain from wearing the t-shirt.
After wearing the t-shirt a third time, the boy received an after-school detention.
A detention notice provided by the plaintiffs as evidence in the case states the boy violated the school’s student code of conduct, Level 1 Rule 14.
That rule is listed as “repeated violation of student conduct code” in to the grades 6-12 student handbook on the district’s website.
The student handbook also outlines dress and grooming policy, which requires students to have clothing that is not disruptive to the learning process, does not attract undue attention and does not include inappropriate, absence, violent or suggestive language or images.
The handbook states a school principal or their designee has the final say on appropriate attire and grooming.
Judge sided with school district in similar case in Michigan
“Let’s Go Brandon” became a political catchphrase in 2021 after a crowd of people at a NASCAR race were chanting “F— Joe Biden” and an NBC reporter claimed the crowd was cheering on Brandon Brown, a driver who had just won the race.
Fox News has since characterized the phrase as ‘a G-rated substitute for “F— Joe Biden.”‘
Brown, who is representing the Madison student and his father, argued “Let’s Go Brandon” communicates criticism of certain media outlets “misreporting facts in a politically based fashion.”
In the complaint, Brown wrote that “Let’s Go Brandon” refers to “certain people’s opinion toward the media and American politics.”
Brown also argued that district officials allow other expressions of speech on student’s clothing at school, including political speech, but did not provide specific examples.
The complaint further states that the student code of conduct “provides no clarity on the rights of students to free speech,” making it “unconstitutionally vague” by allowing individual employees broad discretion to interpret the code and make “content-based restrictions.”
What does similar case law stay?
A similar case played out in Michigan, where two students at Tri-County Middle School wore “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts to school and were told to remove them. The family sued, claiming the phrase should be protected as political speech under the First Amendment.
District Judge Paul Maloney sided with the school district. Maloney wrote in his opinion that profanity does not enjoy First Amendment protection in school settings and that school officials “reasonably interpreted the phrase as having a profane meaning.”
“Directing profanity toward a political figure does not transform the utterance to protected speech,” Maloney wrote.
“Indisputably, the phrase Let’s Go Brandon originated as a profane personal insult directed at President Joe Biden.”
The family has since appealed the case to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a notice filed in September.
Brown pointed out in his complaint the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld non-disruptive speech as protected under the First Amendment, citing a 1969 case when students were penalized for wearing black armbands in school to protest the nation’s involvement in the Vietnam War.
“In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would ‘materially and substantially interfere’ with the operation of school,” Brown wrote.