Clothing says a lot. Aside from the cliches about "clothes make the man" or the woman, the First Amendment implications of attire have risen to the forefront in recent weeks.
The same week the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on the First Amendment implications of clothing citizens could wear to the polling place for voting, first lady Melania Trump wore a coat to an appearance to an immigration detention center displaying a bizarre and -- to some -- insensitive statement.
The now infamous Zara parka had "I really don't care, do u" scrawled across the back. The first lady's jacket became a major talking point and a source of criticism. Though the message is vexing, and the first lady's intent was just as confusing, the incident certainly diverted attention.
The political message of clothing and apparel transcends parties and politics -- remember the red baseball caps that permeated the Trump campaign emblazoned with the campaign mantra to "Make America Great Again?" How about the proliferation of pink knit caps with little ears, known as the "pussy hats," which have become the centerpiece of a women's rights social movement?
When it comes to government regulation of speech or expression through clothing, the venue and context matter. Public schools and prisons can dictate attire worn within their confines.
Clothing, even lack of clothing, can constitute a vital form of speech and political protest. The Supreme Court has spoken on this several times.
For example, in the one of the most important student speech cases, Tinker v. Des Moines, the court ruled that public schools can control or sanction certain types of clothing students wear. Tinker involved a handful of students, including Mary Beth Tinker, who protested the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. Their choice of attire, a simple black armband, elevated their speech and protest.
Another war protest case came out of California in 1971. Cohen v. California arose when Paul Robert Cohen was prosecuted for maliciously disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket emblazoned with a profane rebuke of the draft. The court noted that there were women and children in the courthouse who could have seen the offensive message on the jacket.
Justice John Marshall Harlan famously wrote, "It is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."
Harlan also wrote, "Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual."
Fast forward to last month's Supreme Court ruling in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. The court struck down a state law prohibiting voters from wearing a political badge, button or anything with a political insignia inside a polling place on Election Day.
