{"id":992,"date":"2025-02-11T17:03:03","date_gmt":"2025-02-11T17:03:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/?post_type=cases&p=992"},"modified":"2026-05-01T18:22:17","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T18:22:17","slug":"d-a-v-tri-county-area-schools","status":"publish","type":"cases","link":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/index.php\/cases\/d-a-v-tri-county-area-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools: Amicus Briefs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The First Amendment Clinic filed a brief of amici curiae in December 2024 in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools <\/em>in the Sixth Circuit supporting two middle school students who were punished for their in-school political speech. Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (\u201cFIRE\u201d), the students sued their Michigan school district for forcing them to remove sweatshirts reading \u201cLet\u2019s Go Brandon,\u201d a phrase that has become a rallying cry for some conservative voices across the country. Having lost in the district court, the students appealed to the Sixth Circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Clinic represented a group of First Amendment legal scholars\u2014Erwin Chemerinsky, Clay Calvert, Roy Gutterman, Mary-Rose Papandrea, and Joseph A. Tomain\u2014in arguing, among other things, that the Western District of Michigan failed to apply the proper constitutional standard in rendering its decision. Specifically, the brief argues that by deferring to the school\u2019s interpretation of a popular political phrase as \u201cprofane,\u201d the district court improperly ignored the test established by the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District<\/em><\/a>, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On October 14, 2025, the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the school district, affirming the District Court’s decision. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Clinic filed an amicus brief on April 30, 2026,<\/em> supporting a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this amicus, the Clinic represents Clay Calvert, Erwin Chemerinsky, Roy Gutterman, Heather E. Murray, Daniel Novack, Joseph A. Tomain, Eugene Volokh, and Sonja R. West in arguing that \u201cthe decision below impermissibly extends the authority of public-school officials to penalize students for expressing political viewpoints in the school environment that are neither sexually explicit or profane, nor disruptive to the learning process.\u201d Specifically, the amicus brief argues that by deferring to the school\u2019s interpretation of a popular political phrase as \u201cprofane,\u201d the court improperly ignored the test established by the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District<\/em>, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
12\/11\/24: Amicus brief – 6th Circuit<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
10\/14\/2025: SIXTH CIRCUIT OPINION<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
4\/30\/26: AMICUS BRIEF – US Supreme court<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The First Amendment Clinic filed a brief of amici curiae in December 2024 in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools in the Sixth Circuit supporting two middle school students who were punished for their in-school political speech. Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (\u201cFIRE\u201d), the students sued their Michigan school district for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","categories":[8],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cases\/992"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cases"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/cases"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cases\/992\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1428,"href":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cases\/992\/revisions\/1428"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cornell1a.law.cornell.edu\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}