Advisory Opinions Podcast – Episode Summary

Podcast: Advisory Opinions
Episode: Euphemisms, Political Speech, and the First Amendment
Date: October 21, 2025
Hosts: David French and Sarah Isgur
Location: Live from the University of Texas Law School

Episode Overview

This episode dives into three main legal topics intersecting politics, constitutional rights, and education:

1. The "Let’s Go Brandon" case – Addressing the limits of political speech and vulgarity in public schools under the First Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court’s Calais Voting Rights Act case – A confusing and hotly debated oral argument regarding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and race/partisan gerrymandering.
3. The John Bolton indictment – Analyzing the legal and political implications of the recent indictment of former National Security Advisor John Bolton for mishandling classified information.

The hosts’ lively debate is punctuated by humor, case law deep-dives, and practical perspectives as they untangle complex legal standards with a mix of skepticism and legal precision.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. “Let’s Go Brandon” Case: Euphemisms, School Speech, and the First Amendment

(00:01 – 17:17)

• Case Facts:

  • Two middle schoolers wore “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts, a political meme/euphemism for an anti-Biden vulgarity, to school and were made to remove them under the school’s dress code.
  • They sued, claiming a First Amendment violation; the school cited its ban on attire with lewd, indecent, or vulgar messages.

• Relevant Precedent:

  • Tinker v. Des Moines (substantial disruption standard)
  • Bethel School District v. Fraser (allows ban on lewd, indecent, vulgar speech in schools)

• Two Key Legal Questions (paraphrasing Judge Nalbandian):

  1. Can a phrase lacking explicit profanity still be considered “vulgar” due to its euphemistic meaning?
  2. Can schools prohibit student political speech simply because it is a euphemism for vulgarity?

• Host Positions:

  • David (Team Bush/dissent):
    • Opposes banning the sweatshirt: “When I'm looking at a First Amendment standard, particularly around political speech, which is core, absolute, core protected speech, you're going to need to err on the side of speech, not … euphemism for the prohibited words.” (08:29)
    • Sees line-drawing over euphemisms as dangerously vague; not convinced school administrators should police language trends or Urban Dictionary meanings.
  • Sarah:
    • Suggests an acronym (like "C U Next Tuesday") could be banned, but “Let’s Go Brandon” with political context should get First Amendment protection – acknowledges nuance between euphemism and overt vulgarity.
    • Reads from Judge Bush’s 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.” (10:14)

• Ambiguity and School Admin Dilemma:

  • Both hosts highlight the practical problem: Vagueness in current case law leads schools to either err on the side of over-censorship or move to “close the forum” altogether by banning all clothing messages, ironically reducing free speech.

Notable Quotes

• “Our language is full of euphemisms. … But they're just not the word. They're just not the word.” – David (07:57)
• “The school at any point could simply change their dress code to not allow words on their sweatshirts. And that fixes this whole problem.” – Sarah (13:47)

2. Voting Rights Act and Calais: Supreme Court’s Confusion and the Limits of Racial/Partisan Gerrymandering

(17:17 – 46:13)

• Backdrop:

  • Recent oral arguments in a Voting Rights Act case left both observers and legal experts baffled about possible outcomes.
  • Section 2 of the VRA prohibits racial discrimination in districting but distinguishing racial from partisan gerrymandering—especially in the deep South where correlation is high—is deeply complicated.

• Case Dynamics:

  • Louisiana created a second majority-minority district after a lower court order, then got sued from the opposite political side for alleged racial gerrymandering.
  • Practical effect: Black/Republican political interests sometimes align due to the “packing” effect—concentrating Democratic (often Black) voters into fewer districts can benefit Republicans overall.

• Supreme Court Justices’ Foci:

  • Chief Justice Roberts: Concerned with precedent (Allen v. Milligan) and statutory stare decisis; unlikely to vote to overturn recent precedent. (27:24)
  • Justice Kavanaugh: Wondered if there should be a time limit for Section 2 remedies—when does the “remedy” expire? (27:28)
  • Justice Barrett: Went deep into constitutional theory—does the current Section 2 standard provide a remedy or create a new right? Focus on “congruence and proportionality” under City of Boerne v. Flores. (28:11)
  • Justice Alito: Sought burden-shifting—should courts presume gerrymanders are partisan, not racial? Narrow technical focus on compactness under the Jingles test. (34:50)

• Core Uncertainties:

  • Both hosts and cited law professors express confusion about both the likely outcome and the scope of possible changes. There was no clear sense from oral argument if the Court would “gut” Section 2 or opt for a narrow, technical ruling.

• Memorable Moment:

  • “If Derek Mueller doesn't know what happened in this case, let me assure you that no one else does either.” – Sarah (19:23)

3. John Bolton Indictment: Classified Info, Lawfare, and Prosecution Standards

(38:01 – 44:26)

• Case Facts:

  • Former NSA John Bolton indicted for mishandling classified info (diary entries, sharing with family via unsecured channels during book-writing).

• David’s Analysis:

  • Clarifies: Classified info isn’t about markings but substance (“if I read a document that says classified … and I put it on a non-classified system and send it, I have just broken the law.” (39:35))
  • Says the case seems meritorious if facts are proven; selective prosecution defenses rarely succeed.

• Lawfare Concerns:

  • Points out political optics: If Bolton is prosecuted but others (e.g., current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who allegedly did the same) are not, it could be lawfare.
  • “Within the four corners of the indictment, this is a substantially more credible case than the one brought against Comey and against James.” (43:21)

• Sarah:

  • Agrees Bolton unlikely to have a strong selective/vindictive prosecution defense, especially as investigation began under Biden admin.

4. Audience Q&A and Academic Freedom Discussion

(46:26 – 50:13)

• Public Higher Education & Academic Freedom:
  • David summarizes: There’s a tension between institutional and individual academic freedom; the Supreme Court acknowledges both exist and are necessary to avoid stifling inquiry and culture.
  • Warns against treating universities as mere state mouthpieces akin to K-12, which would erode academic and First Amendment freedoms.
  • “The freedom to study, to inquire, to learn in institutions of higher education is so fundamental that if it is deprived, the language that the Court has said is our culture will stagnate and die.” (48:38)

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Let’s Go Brandon Case: 00:01–17:17
• Voting Rights Act Oral Argument (Calais): 17:17–46:13
• John Bolton Indictment: 38:01–44:26
• Academic Freedom & Q&A: 46:26–50:13

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “This case is about the vulgarity exception. Two questions, as Judge Nalbandian put it: The first is linguistic … The second is doctrinal …” – Sarah (05:02)
• “I had three words that came to my mind … ‘Holy forking shirt balls.’” – David, referencing euphemisms and The Good Place (07:31)
• “Vagueness in current case law leads schools to either err on the side of over-censorship or move to ‘close the forum’ … reducing free speech.” – Paraphrase of both hosts (13:14, 16:01)
• “If Derek Mueller doesn't know what happened in this case, let me assure you that no one else does either.” – Sarah (19:23)
• “Winning on selective prosecution is very, very, very rare.” – David (42:42)
• “The freedom to study, to inquire, to learn … is so fundamental that if it is deprived … our culture will stagnate and die.” – David (48:38)

Tone and Style

• The hosts are witty, candid, and meticulous, blending deep legal knowledge with humor and practical examples.
• They candidly address ambiguities and unresolved questions in current case law.
• The show maintains a conversational and accessible style even while getting “in the weeds” on complex constitutional topics.

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode

This episode is an in-depth, accessible look at free speech (especially in schools), the ongoing tangle of redistricting law, and what happens when prominent political figures run afoul of national security statutes. The hosts bring clarity—and an honest admission of legal complexity—making this a must-listen (or read) for those following high-stakes constitutional debates.