Bill to ban phones during classes clears NC Senate
RALEIGH — The state Senate passed bipartisan legislation Tuesday directing schools to ban the use of cellphones, laptops and other wireless devices during classes, with a series of exceptions including educational use.
Senators voted 41-1 to approve Senate Bill 55 and send it to the House, where lawmakers have advanced a bill of their own. The House's bill is less restrictive and only covers cellphones, unlike the Senate's bill, which covers tablet and laptop computers as well.
One of the primary sponsors of the House bill is Rep. Brian Biggs, R-Randolph. Biggs filed House Bill 87 last month.
The Senate's bill would require school boards and charter schools to create their own policies on wireless devices that, at a minimum, prohibit students from using, displaying, or having any 'wireless communication device' turned on during classes.
School boards would be responsible for establishing consequences for violating the policy, which could include confiscation and disciplinary measures as prescribed by each school's code of student conduct. The policies adopted by school boards would be required to allow cellphone use either by permission of a teacher for educational purposes; in case of an emergency; if required for a student's individualized education program or section 504 plan; or to manage a student's health care.
Two lawmakers who joined forces on this bill, GOP Sen. Jim Burgin, one of the bill's three primary sponsors, and Democratic Sen. Jay Chaudhuri, the Senate Democratic whip, previously filed legislation last year to study the impact of phones in schools.
Chaudhuri said after Senate Bill 55 was filed last month that in today's society, the ubiquity of smartphones and other electronic devices has led to 'a collective action problem where we've created a phone-based childhood as opposed to a phone-free childhood.'
At least 19 states have already passed laws banning phones in schools or recommending local school districts enact their own restrictions, according to an analysis by Education Week.
Distributed at Tribune Content Agency.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
35 minutes ago
Hegseth to testify on Capitol Hill as House Dem calls Marine deployment to LA ‘outrageous'
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to testify before a House panel on Tuesday, his first time on Capitol Hill since being sworn in five months ago and as questions swirl about the deployment of troops to Los Angeles as part of an immigration crackdown. Hegseth planned to appear before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee alongside Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and acting Pentagon Comptroller Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell to discuss the administration's upcoming 2026 budget request. During the hearing, Hegseth is widely expected to dodge many of the specifics on the military's spending blueprint, which has not been released, and instead highlight recent gains in recruiting numbers and new technology initiatives in the Army. But overshadowing much of his testimony will be the Pentagon's decision to send some 4,800 troops, including 700 Marines, to Los Angeles following several days of clashes between protesters and law enforcement there. The troops, known as Task Force 51, are being called under a law known as Title 10, which allows the president to send military forces to protect federal property and personnel. Gen. Eric Smith, commandant of the Marine Corps, is scheduled to testify separately Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. On the eve of Hegseth's testimony, Rep. Betty McCollum on Minnesota, the top Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, accused President Donald Trump of deliberately escalating the situation in Los Angeles by pushing for military reinforcements not requested by California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. She called decision to send Marines in particular " outrageous." "The active duty military has absolutely no legal role in domestic law enforcement. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth should read the Constitution and follow the law," she said. The Pentagon has not had a news conference since the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, referring reporters with questions about the mission to Hegseth's posts on X. On X, Hegseth said the troops were needed to protect federal immigration officers and detention buildings. "There is plenty of room for peaceful protest, but ZERO tolerance for attacking federal agents who are doing their job. The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE," Hegseth said in a statement. U.S. officials said the troops would carry guns and ammunition separately for use only in self-defense and to protect federal property. They would not patrol the streets or help law enforcement arrest protesters, the officials said. Unclear is whether Trump is preparing to invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that says the president can call on a militia or the U.S. armed forces if there's been "any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" in a state that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws." On his Truth Social platform on Sunday, Trump referred to the L.A. protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs" and "paid insurrectionists." When asked if Hegseth had spoken with Trump on Monday, Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told ABC News, "the Secretary is in regular contact with the President regarding the National Guard presence in Los Angeles." Following his testimony, Hegseth is expected to travel with the president to Fort Bragg in North Carolina on Tuesday to participate in activities tied to the Army's 250th birthday celebration. Under Hegseth, the military has taken over control of hundreds of miles along the U.S. southern border with Mexico in an effort to tamp down unauthorized entry by migrants. He's also eliminated programs aimed at increasing diversity among military personnel, slashed the number of general officers and initiated efforts to build a $175 billion U.S. missile defense shield. At the same time, Hegseth also faces reports of dysfunction and infighting among his personal staff at the Pentagon. Since his Jan. 25 swearing in, Hegseth has fired or sidelined several of his own top political advisers and he's gone without a chief of staff since April. Tuesday's hearing also would be Hegseth's first appearance since revelations that he relied on a commercial messaging app known as Signal to relay details about a pending military attack to other high-ranking officials and others, including his wife. Hegseth's use of Signal is now under internal investigation by the Defense Department's inspector general.
35 minutes ago
New Jersey holds primaries for governor, setting up a key 2025 race
Voters head to the polls on Tuesday for New Jersey's primary elections, which will set up the state's 2025 gubernatorial election -- the results of which could be a potential harbinger for the mood of the country ahead of 2026's critical midterm elections. The Democratic candidates are sparring over how to best respond to President Donald Trump's agenda in the Garden State and each hopes to keep the state's governorship in Democratic hands. The state's current governor, Democrat Phil Murphy, can't run again after serving two terms. There are six candidates in the Democratic primary. Polling has shown that Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot who represents the state's 11th Congressional District, leads the crowded Democratic field, but the race could still be anyone's to win. The other Democratic candidates are Rep. Josh Gottheimer, who represents the state's 5th District; Newark Mayor Ras Baraka; Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop; New Jersey Education Association President Sean Spiller; and former state Senate president Steve Sweeney. Republicans, meanwhile, hope to flip New Jersey's governorship red in November and also have a crowded primary field. President Donald Trump has endorsed former state assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, who ran for governor in 2021, narrowly losing to Murphy. 'This year's election for governor is critical for New Jersey's future. You'll decide whether New Jersey is a high tax, high crime, sanctuary state,' Trump said during a rally held by telephone last week. 'New Jersey is ready to pop out of that blue horror show.' Ciattarelli faces conservative radio personality Bill Spadea, state Sen. Jon Bramnick, former Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario Kranjac, and contractor Justin Barbera. The contest is on track to become the priciest election in New Jersey history, with over $85 million spent on advertising as of last Wednesday, according to a report from media tracking agency AdImpact. Among Democrats, Gottheimer has the most ad spending supporting him ($22.8 million), followed by Fulop ($17.8 million). Ciattarelli leads among Republicans with $5.9 million in ad spending or reservations supporting him, dwarfing Spadea's $2.2 million and Bramnick's $1.2 million. About 70% of broadcast ad airings have mentioned Trump, according to AdImpact.
USA Today
37 minutes ago
- USA Today
Can you be legally punished for misgendering someone? Colorado says yes.
Can you be legally punished for misgendering someone? Colorado says yes. | Opinion Colorado has threatened to sic the thought police on anyone who doesn't comply by using state-approved language about transgender people. Show Caption Hide Caption Jennifer Sey talks about starting the XX-XY Athletics company Jennifer Sey talks about starting the XX-XY Athletics company USA TODAY staff You'd think that after two significant losses at the U.S. Supreme Court, Colorado would tread more carefully with its anti-discrimination laws. No such luck. A new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis in May, expands the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to make deadnaming and misgendering transgender individuals a punishable offense. California, not surprisingly, has tried something similar but on a more limited basis. The updated Colorado provisions have already attracted lawsuits on the grounds that the law violates the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment. Much like two other Colorado cases involving a cake baker and a web designer that reached the Supreme Court, this law pits free speech rights against public accommodation protections. At the heart of those cases, as well as this one, is the fact that the government – no matter how well-intentioned – cannot compel speech or chosen messages. Opinion: Democrats waste $20 million to learn why they lost men. Here's my free advice. And that's what Colorado's trans rights law would do, by claiming 'it is now a 'discriminatory practice' under Colorado law to refer to transgender-identifying individuals by their birth name (i.e., not their 'chosen name') or to use biological pronouns (i.e., not their preferred pronouns) in a place of public accommodation,' according to the first lawsuit, filed by a group of national and Colorado parental-rights organizations, including Defending Education. Forced gender ideology adherence? Here come the thought police. The law describes 'gender expression' as including someone's 'chosen name' and 'how an individual chooses to be addressed.' That is troublesome to the groups involved because a lot of the work they do centers on pushing back against gender ideology. Using biologically accurate terms is integral to their work. For instance, when discussing whether transgender students should participate in girls' sports, the debate is rooted in the biological differences between boys and girls. Now, the groups are at risk of violating the law when speaking in public spaces in Colorado. Opinion: Trump is right. Transgender athletes turn girls' track meets into a farce. 'H.B. 25-1312 was passed for the very purpose of suppressing traditional views on sex and gender and punishing those who refuse to address transgender-identifying individuals using so-called chosen names and preferred pronouns,' the lawsuit states. Those punishments could include investigations, lawsuits and fines, in addition to the possibility of 'participation in mandatory educational programs' if deemed necessary by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Thought police, anyone? 'I think it's the first time that we've seen a state actually try to cement in its own anti-discrimination canon a requirement to violate the First Amendment,' Sarah Parshall Perry, Defending Education's vice president and legal fellow, told me. She said the Supreme Court has made clear that in addition to the government forcing someone to communicate a message, forcing someone to silence themselves – essentially creating a heckler's veto – is a free speech violation. Businesses like XX-XY Athletics should be able to speak the truth The second federal lawsuit against Colorado's law was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of XX-XY Athletics, which was founded in Denver in 2024 by former Levi's executive Jennifer Sey. As the name implies, XX-XY Athletics is an athletic brand that unapologetically defends women's sports and spaces and has been outspoken about why biological men shouldn't be competing with women athletically. So using correct language is vital to the company's branding and advertising. 'Colorado continues to place itself on the wrong side of the law by forcing Coloradans to speak against their conscience,' said Hal Frampton, ADF senior counsel, in a statement. ADF is the law firm that secured wins for its Colorado clients – baker Jack Phillips and web designer Lorie Smith – in two cases that reached the Supreme Court. So it's well-positioned to intervene now. Opinion: Activists have made baker Jack Phillips' life miserable. Please leave him alone. Colorado wants to mandate 'kindness' for the LGBTQ+ community through its anti-discrimination laws. Yet, what state officials refuse to learn is that no law is above the Constitution. And in this case, requiring citizens to use language that's simply not true or accurate will never pass muster when squared with the First Amendment. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
