No Injunction for 8th-Grade Student Disciplined for Wearing "Let's Go Brandon" T-Shirt to School

From Senior Judge Christopher Boyko's decision Monday in Conrad v. Madison Local School Dist. Bd. of Ed.:

According to his Verified Complaint, C.C. wore the shirt on November 25, 2024, underneath a flannel shirt. Plaintiff alleges:

The phrase "Let's Go Brandon" communicates criticism of certain media outlets for a well-documented pattern of misreporting facts in a politically biased fashion. In this particular incident, a large crowd at a NASCAR race was heard shouting a profane disdain for then-President Joseph R. Biden, chanting "F*** Joe Biden." The reporter on the scene reported the chant as "Let's go Brandon," as if the chant was actually praise for the winner of the race, whose first name was Brandon. From that point forward, that moment was perceived as a microcosm of a larger problem, and "Lets Go Brandon" became a popular expression of certain people's opinion toward the media and American politics.

Plaintiff alleges C.C. wore the shirt the previous school year without complaint. However, on this particular day, Defendant Krista Ferini, a teacher and registered democrat, told C.C. to "button that up. I know what that means." C.C. complied and buttoned up his flannel shirt. Later that day, while in a classroom that lacked air conditioning, C.C. took off his flannel shirt. When Ferini saw C.C. without the flannel covering up his Let's Go Brandon t-shirt she wrote him up. Due to the write-up C.C. reported to Defendant Andrew Keeple, Principal of C.C.'s school. Keeple instructed C.C. to wear the flannel the rest of the day and to never wear the shirt to school again.

However, C.C. did wear the shirt again in January of 2025. Once again, Ferini confronted C.C. asking if he liked offending people. Plaintiff alleges no one else had complained about the t-shirt. Yet, Keeple called Conrad to inform him that C.C. had once again violated the school's dress code and if he did it again there would be further disciplinary action taken because the message was code for a vulgar expression. Conrad disagreed with Keeple about the message the t-shirt conveyed and informed Keeple he would not instruct C.C. to stop wearing the t-shirt. On March 24, 2025, C.C. wore the t-shirt again without any other student or staff member complaining or objecting. Yet, he received a detention from Keeple. Two more times C.C. was disciplined by the school for violations of the Student Code of Conduct Rule L1-L14(Repeated Violations of Code of Conduct)….

In Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), the United States Supreme Court found that a student engaged in speech not protected by the First Amendment. At a Pierce County, Washington, high school assembly, student Matthew Fraser delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for an elected office. Fraser's speech used "an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor" to describe his chosen candidate. The school rules forbade certain conduct, "including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." The school suspended Fraser, who later sued. The Court reasoned that it had "recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language." And, the Court found that "it is a highly appropriate function of a public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse."

In D.A., two students wore shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon." The district court on summary judgment held that the school's interpretation that the phrase was a vulgar euphemism was reasonable and granted judgment for the school.

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….

For more on the D.A. case, see this post.

Molly E. Davis and Jorden Messmer (Reminger Co.) represent defendants.