Photo via New York Post

Supreme Court won’t hear case of students banned from wearing ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ shirts

Read the original at New York Post ↗
Cite

Christenson, J. (2026, October 5). Supreme Court won’t hear case of students banned from wearing ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ shirts. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2026/10/05/us-news/supreme-court-wont-hear-case-of-students-banned-from-wearing-lets-go-brandon-shirts/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

New York Post · collected 2026-10-05 · by Josh Christenson

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal regarding middle school students banned from wearing "Let’s Go Brandon" shirts at Tri County Middle School in Howard City. The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that the school could prohibit the shirts as vulgar speech, despite their political nature, and upheld a district ban following complaints from an assistant principal and teacher that the message was equivalent to profanity. In dissent, Judge John Bush argued that recharacterizing political speech as vulgarity risks justifying censorship of disagreement with political views, violating First Amendment protections.
Written by AI on 2026-10-05, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

The Supreme Court has declined an appeal from a Michigan mother who challenged her local school district's ban on "Let’s Go Brandon" sweatshirts for students. The phrase, widely seen as a coded reference to profanity aimed at then-President Joe Biden, was prohibited by the school due to its perceived vulgarity and disruptive potential. In October 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ban, ruling that schools could reasonably prohibit such clothing since it constitutes vulgar speech. The mother argued her sons' First Amendment rights were violated when they were instructed to remove these shirts during Christmas in 2022. Despite disagreements among judges on whether political speech can be censored under the guise of vulgarity, the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case leaves the lower court's ruling intact.

Written for “Supreme Court Rejects Appeal” on 2026-11-03, grounded in this article and the 1 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Supreme Court Rejects Appeal
Politics · 2 article(s) covering the same event. See how they differ ↓

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 31% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Toronto Star
⚖️ Leans right Hedges 0 of 2 claims Outlet record 64/100
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
13
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
31%
4 of 13 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher signals
66/100
New York Post's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
2
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-05 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

New York Post · 16532 article(s) · 35 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 35 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Josh Christenson
62 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 The outcome of races for 10 House Republican incumbents will determine whether the lower chamber falls to Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections.
🔮 “I don’t think he’s gonna get fired immediately, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was eventually pushed out,” the source said.
🔮 DJT will pardon me.”
🔮 Consular services will resume shortly,” Sienik added later.
🔮 Soriano is currently being held without bond, a rep for the Prince William County Adult Detention Center told The Post Friday.
🔮 Moscow’s foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov said that Putin said “in principle” peace talks will continue after Nov. 10, following a meeting with US special envoy Steve Witkoff in St. Petersburg.
🔮 Tuesday’s talks centered on points in a proposal that will be presented to Russia the following day, laying out a framework for peace with Ukraine, security guarantees and “a broader European security architecture,” which could involve Ukraine joining the EU, as well as post-war plans for financial recovery, according to US officials and leaders who participated.
🔮 Given the case is being pursued as a general conspiracy, the evidence will prove useful even if some of the acts fall outside of the statute of limitations. “If you argue a conspiracy, you can allege overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that are outside the statute of limitations,” said Neama Rahmini, a former federal prosecutor.
🔮 In December 2025, then-US Attorney Joe Thompson claimed as much as $9 billion in taxpayer funds may have been pilfered from state coffers since 2018 — the same year Democrat Tim Walz was first elected Minnesota governor.
🔮 “I will be transferring from our campaign in New York one million dollars to the state of Michigan to help support you all,” Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told supporters at an event while stumping for El-Sayed in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula on Thursday.
2026-10-16 · assertive framing · AOC sends $1M to Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan Senate race
Also by Josh Christenson
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 62 articles by Josh Christenson →

Topics

Cincinnati FIRE NBC Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals the First Amendment

Subjects

FIRE ORG · 2× Trump PERSON · 2× Brandon GPE · 1× Brandon Brown PERSON · 1× Cincinnati GPE · 1× Joe Biden PERSON · 1× Kelli Stavast PERSON · 1× NASCAR ORG · 1× NBC ORG · 1× Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ORG · 1×

Narrative

Another Trump appointee, Judge John Bush, wrote in dissent: “If we allow schools the power to censor political speech by recharacterizing it as vulgarity, we risk turning disagreement with political speech into justification for its censorship — something the First Amendment flatly forbids.”
framing: mixed · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-05
🔮 The high court chose to leave in place an October 2025 ruling by the Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found “that the school could reasonably prohibit the sweatshirts since they were vulgar speech.”

Claims (13 extracted, 4 hedged)

The high court chose to leave in place an October 2025 ruling by the Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found “that the school could reasonably prohibit the sweatshirts since they were vulgar speech.” uncertain
they → choose → sweatshirts
No reason was given by the high court for declining to take up the appeal. asserted
reason → give → appeal
“Let’s Go Brandon” was widely adopted in the fall of 2021 as a substitute for the phrase “F— Joe Biden” after NBC reporter Kelli Stavast misheard the profane chant by the crowd while interviewing NASCAR driver Brandon Brown following the Xfinity Series’ Sparks 300 that October. asserted
Stavast → let → Sparks
“Here, the school administrators reasonably interpreted the ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ slogan as being vulgar speech that ‘a school may categorically prohibit’ despite its political message,” the Sixth Circuit affirmed in a 2-1 decision. uncertain
Circuit → interpret → decision
“Requesting that students remove clothing with that slogan didn’t violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” asserted
students → request → Amendments
“In the schoolhouse, vulgarity trumps politics,” wrote Judge John Nalbandian, an appointee of President Trump, in the majority opinion. asserted
Nalbandian → trump → opinion
Another Trump appointee, Judge John Bush, wrote in dissent: “If we allow schools the power to censor political speech by recharacterizing it as vulgarity, we risk turning disagreement with political speech into justification for its censorship — something the First Amendment flatly forbids.” asserted
Amendment → write → censorship
The mother of the middle school boys who wore the shirts sued the school district in 2023, claiming that the ban infringed on her sons’ First Amendment rights. asserted
ban → wear → rights
The district had barred the shirts after deeming their message in violation of the school dress code — and not because of the political element, according to an attorney representing Tri County Middle School in Howard City, about 35 miles north of Grand Rapids. uncertain
message → bar → Rapids
An assistant principal and teacher had asked the brothers to take off the sweatshirts since their message was deemed “equivalent to the f-word,” according to the lawsuit. uncertain
message → ask → lawsuit
The suit was filed on behalf of the mother by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech legal and advocacy group. asserted
suit → file → Rights
“Criticism of the president is core political speech protected by the First Amendment,” said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick in a statement at the time. asserted
Fitzpatrick → protect → time
“Whether it’s a Biden sticker, ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ sweatshirt or gay pride T-shirt, schools can’t pick and choose which political beliefs students can express.” asserted
students → ’ → beliefs
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support