Supreme Court Declines Cases on 'Let's Go Brandon' Apparel, Felon Gun Rights, and Vaccine Mandates

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision to deny review in *Reel v. North Carolina* leaves intact a ruling regarding whether 'knock and talk' visits by investigators constitute a Fourth Amendment search, impacting law enforcement practices statewide.

The Supreme Court began its 2026-27 term by releasing an order list derived from its private conference on September 28. This list, a routine annual occurrence following the summer recess, detailed hundreds of denied petitions for review. These rejections included cases involving a school's ban on 'Let's Go Brandon' sweatshirts, the Second Amendment rights of individuals with felony convictions, and challenges to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. In addition to denied petitions, the court requested the U.S. Solicitor General's input on several cases and remanded others to lower courts for reconsideration. For example, in *Mullin v. National TPS Alliance*, the Supreme Court directed a federal appeals court to re-examine a decision concerning Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans and Haitians. This followed a June ruling that generally restricts courts from reviewing administrative decisions related to the program. The court also requested the Trump administration's perspective on a group of cases—*Citizens Bank v. Conti*, *Cantero v. Bank of America*, and *Flagstar v. Kivett*—which address whether federal banking regulations preempt state laws requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in mortgage-escrow accounts. ### 'Let's Go Brandon' Apparel One denied petition, *D.A. ex rel. B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools*, involved the constitutionality of a school's prohibition on clothing displaying the phrase 'Let's Go Brandon,' a substitute for an expletive against former President Joe Biden. The dispute originated in 2022 when two brothers wore these sweatshirts to Tri County Middle School in Michigan. School administrators required them to remove the apparel, prompting the brothers to file a lawsuit claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights. A federal district court dismissed their claims, and a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld this decision. Judge John Nalbandian, writing for the majority, stated that courts generally defer to school districts on student speech deemed vulgar. Nalbandian concluded that the phrase's 'plainly vulgar meaning' superseded political expression, asserting that First Amendment protection for political speech does not extend to vulgarity in school, even when expressed through innuendo. The brothers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the lower court's decision threatened student First Amendment rights by allowing censorship of non-disruptive political speech based on an individual's perception of 'vulgarity.' They cited *Bethel School District v. Fraser* (1986), where the court affirmed a school's right to discipline a student for using sexual metaphor in a school assembly speech, noting such speech could undermine educational missions. The brothers contended that appellate courts differed on *Fraser*'s application to student speech, with the 6th Circuit adopting a broader interpretation than others. The school district countered that their approach prevented schools from becoming 'nurseries of debauchery.' By denying review, the Supreme Court let the 6th Circuit's ruling stand. ### Felony Convictions and Second Amendment Rights The Supreme Court also declined to hear *United States v. Hembree*, a Second Amendment challenge to the federal statute prohibiting individuals with felony convictions from possessing firearms. This follows the court's June ruling in *United States v. Hemani*, which found a federal law disarming 'habitual' drug users unconstitutional as applied to a man who used marijuana a few times a week. Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in *Hemani* specifically noted that the ruling did not address laws disarming individuals convicted of felonies. Charles Hembree, convicted of methamphetamine possession in 2018, later pleaded guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a gun. He argued that the federal law, as applied to him, violated the Second Amendment, citing no historical tradition of disarming individuals based on simple drug possession convictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed. The federal government had asked the Supreme Court to hold Hembree's case pending the *Hemani* decision. After *Hemani*, Hembree urged the justices to uphold the 5th Circuit's ruling, stating *Hemani* did not affect his case regarding nonviolent felons. ### COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Two cases concerning COVID-19 vaccine mandates were also denied review. In *Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue*, the court denied a dispute over the standard employers must meet to justify denying religious accommodation requests. This case involved eight firefighters in Washington state who sought religious exemptions from a 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The fire department denied their requests, citing an inability to provide accommodation. A federal judge ruled for the department, a decision upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit panel determined that the fire department would have faced 'undue hardship' by accommodating unvaccinated firefighters, citing 'significant health and safety costs.' The firefighters appealed, asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether employers must demonstrate 'real' undue hardships or if 'good-faith but mistaken fears' suffice. They argued that the 9th Circuit, along with the 1st and 6th Circuits, required only a 'reasonable concern' of undue hardship, while other circuits demanded proof of actual undue hardship. The fire department contended that the claimed division among circuits was overstated and that the case was not suitable for review due to inadmissible evidence presented by the firefighters. The justices also denied review in *Roberts v. Ferguson*, another dispute from Washington state concerning COVID-19 vaccine rules. Former employees of Shriners Hospitals for Children had argued that the state and health system violated the 14th Amendment by mandating vaccines, claiming 'consent under coercion' and insufficient FDA review. This denial leaves in place a 9th Circuit ruling that dismissed the former employees' case. ### Other Denied Cases Other notable denials included: * *Thompson v. Wilson*, involving a Maine lobsterman's Fourth Amendment challenge to a state rule requiring tracking devices on vessels. * *Reel v. North Carolina*, regarding whether 'knock and talk' visits by investigators constitute a Fourth Amendment search. * *N.R. v. Ellison*, where former foster parents challenged the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act. * *Balwani v. United States*, the case of Elizabeth Holmes' former associate, Ramesh Sunny Balwani, who sought review of his trial for alleged false testimony. * *Roof v. U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina*, filed by Dylann Roof, who contended that the federal judge in his mass shooting trial was not impartial. * *Moore v. Senate Majority PAC*, involving Roy Moore's appeal of a ruling preventing him from collecting a defamation jury award against a political action committee. * *Mulkey v. Alabama*, in which Steven Richard Mulkey, a death row inmate, argued that a trial court judge violated his right to an impartial jury. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement concurring in the denial but emphasizing judicial caution regarding jury exposure to collateral proceedings. * *Norfolk Southern Railway v. Mallory*, where the court declined to decide if Pennsylvania violates the Constitution by allowing a lawsuit from an out-of-state plaintiff against an out-of-state company with no relation to Pennsylvania to proceed in its courts. The Supreme Court previously left this question open when the case first came before them three years prior.