(The Center Square) – Oral arguments were to be heard Thursday in a lawsuit for a case involving two Michigan brothers wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” apparel to school.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a national nonprofit that defends free speech, is representing the two students in court.

Recommended Stories

• Hochul accuses Stefanik of seeking ‘viral moment’ in testy Oversight exchange 
• 'No Kings' protests: Everything you need to know about the anti-Trump movement
• How does Shapiro wield the Pennsylvania National Guard? At his discretion

FIRE first sued Tri County Area Schools, located in mid-Michigan, in 2023 after school administrators ordered the boys to remove sweatshirts bearing the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon.” The phrase has become a popular euphemism using an expletive and the name of former President Joe Biden.

After a Michigan federal judge ruled against the students in 2024, saying the sweatshirts did convey a profane meaning, FIRE appealed. The case was then taken up by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

In an exclusive interview with The Center Square, Conor Fitzpatrick, one of the FIRE attorneys representing the students, said that the school’s restriction was a clear violation of First Amendment rights.

“They wore the sweatshirts to express their opposition to President Biden, and they wore the shirts to express their message in a way that didn’t use profanity,” Fitzpatrick said. “They wanted to respect the rules of the school.”

He also pointed out that there was no disruption to classes or school operation by the students wearing the sweatshirts. Despite that, the school still ordered the students to remove them and banned the sweatshirts.

“They used an intentionally sanitized phrase in order to express their political beliefs in a nondisruptive fashion,” Fitzpatrick said. “That’s something that the First Amendment squarely protects.”

Previous precedent has determined that students do not lose their free speech rights when they enter school, particularly political speech, as long as it does not disrupt school activities. That said, they are allowed to restrict “lewd, indecent, or offensive speech.”

Fitzpatrick said this instance does not fall into that category.

“We think, both from a First Amendment perspective and just a common sense perspective, that this is protected political speech,” he said.

MICHIGAN DEMOCRAT JOCELYN BENSON FACES IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION OVER CORRUPTION CONCERNS

Fitzpatrick added that he is feeling “optimistic” going into oral arguments that the students’ rights will be upheld.

“Our clients pursued the case to vindicate not only their First Amendment rights, but the First Amendment rights of all Michigan students to engage in peaceful, nondisruptive political speech,” he said. “I’m feeling optimistic. For 55 years, it’s been settled law in the United States that students retain the right to engage in nondisruptive political expression at school, and we hope that holding will remain true here.”