June 8, 2026 — The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear C.S. v. McCrumb, bringing an end to a First Amendment lawsuit filed on behalf of a Michigan third-grader who was forced by school officials to remove a hat featuring an AR-15-style rifle and the historic “Come and Take It” slogan.
The denial of certiorari leaves in place lower court rulings that sided with school administrators who viewed the hat as inappropriate and potentially disruptive.
In February 2022, during a weeklong “Great Kindness Challenge” at Robert Kerr Elementary School in Durand, Michigan, students were encouraged to participate in themed dress-up days, including “Hat Day.” Eight-year-old C.S. chose to wear a black baseball cap belonging to her father. The hat displayed a white star, an image of an AR-15-style rifle, and the phrase “COME AND TAKE IT” in capital letters.
According to court filings, C.S. selected the hat because she enjoys sport shooting with her father and wanted to express support for the Second Amendment. She later told school officials the hat “made [her] feel safe.”
School staff noticed the firearm imagery and directed her to remove the hat and place it in her locker. Her parents were contacted and asked to bring a different hat; they declined. The student was not suspended or otherwise disciplined beyond the removal of the hat.
School officials initially cited a general policy against weapon imagery. After the lawsuit was filed, they added a post-hoc justification: concern that the hat could upset students in light of a high school shooting that had occurred in a neighboring county weeks earlier — even though there was no evidence that any students at Kerr Elementary were aware of that incident at the time.
C.S., through her father Adam Stroub as next friend, sued Durand Area Schools Superintendent Craig McCrumb, Principal Amy Leffel, and another staff member. The suit alleged that forcing the student to remove the hat violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and expression.
The case was backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). Attorneys involved included Eugene Volokh and others with experience in free speech and Second Amendment litigation.
Plaintiffs argued that the hat constituted symbolic speech protected under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” They contended that the school’s actions were not justified by any actual disruption and that the later-added safety rationale was manufactured after the fact.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the school officials. The court acknowledged that the First Amendment applies in schools but found the administrators’ actions reasonable under the circumstances.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The full Sixth Circuit later declined to rehear the case en banc, though the denial was accompanied by a sharp dissent from at least one judge.
On June 8, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in C.S. v. McCrumb (No. 25-831). The denial was issued as part of the Court’s regular Monday order list and was not accompanied by any published opinions or statements from the justices.
With the denial, the Sixth Circuit’s ruling stands, and the case is now final.
While the dispute involved a single elementary school student and a hat, the issues at stake were broader:
Advocates for gun rights and free speech argued that if schools can ban symbols associated with the Second Amendment while permitting other political or social messages, it creates a viewpoint-discriminatory environment.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take the case means there will be no new national precedent clarifying how Tinker and its progeny apply to student expression involving firearms or Second Amendment advocacy in elementary schools. Different circuits may continue to reach different results in similar disputes.
For parents and students in states with strong school speech protections or more permissive approaches to gun-related expression, the outcome may have limited immediate effect. In other jurisdictions, schools may feel emboldened to restrict similar imagery or messaging.
The case also underscores ongoing cultural tensions around firearms in educational settings — even when the expression is symbolic, peaceful, and tied to a constitutionally protected right.
C.S. v. McCrumb is over. A third-grader who wanted to wear a hat supporting the right to keep and bear arms was told she could not. The federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, declined to intervene.
Whether this reflects a narrow application of student speech doctrine or a broader reluctance to wade into disputes involving guns and schools remains a subject of debate among constitutional lawyers and advocates on both sides.
For those who believe the Second Amendment deserves the same respect in schools as other constitutional rights, today’s order list delivered a clear message: not this time.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.