Supreme Court declines to review school sweatshirt ban and felony gun rights

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its first order list of the 2026-27 term, declining to review hundreds of petitions that accumulated over the summer recess. The cases turned away by the justices included a dispute over a school’s prohibition of political clothing, a challenge to federal firearm restrictions for individuals with felony convictions, and a religious accommodation battle over a healthcare vaccination requirement.

By choosing not to hear these appeals, the high court allowed existing lower-court decisions to remain in effect. The announcements came as the justices opened their new term with oral arguments.

School clothing bans and student speech

In the school clothing case, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge regarding a public-school district’s ban on sweatshirts bearing the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon.” Two middle school brothers in Michigan had worn the sweatshirts given by their mother for Christmas, but administrators required them to remove the clothing. A federal district court and a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit both ruled in favor of the school district, concluding that the slogan has a plainly vulgar meaning that trumps political expression. The Supreme Court’s denial leaves that ruling intact.

Felony convictions and firearm restrictions

The justices also passed on an opportunity to review a Second Amendment challenge involving federal firearm laws. The case centered on a man convicted of methamphetamine possession who was later charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a gun. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had agreed that the federal restriction violated the Second Amendment as applied to him, concluding the government could not show a historical tradition of disarming people for simple drug possession. By denying review, the high court left the 5th Circuit decision standing.

Religious accommodations for vaccine rules

In a healthcare dispute, the court declined to review a case concerning religious accommodations for workplace vaccine mandates. Eight firefighters had requested an exemption from a state mandate requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers. Lower courts upheld the fire department’s denial of the exemption, finding that granting it would create an undue hardship due to health and safety costs and staff shortages. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal leaves the lower-court judgment in place.

What this means for everyday people

For students and parents, the refusal to take the school clothing case means that local school administrators retain broad authority to restrict student clothing that they deem vulgar, even if it carries a political message. Workers and employers dealing with religious accommodation requests must continue to operate under existing circuit precedents regarding what constitutes an undue hardship. Anyone navigating school discipline, firearm restrictions, or workplace mandates should consult an attorney to understand how local and regional court rulings apply to their specific situation.

This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 5, 2026.