The Kids Are Alright

2:19 PM, Jan. 28, 2026

As of January 2026, twenty-seven states have enacted statewide bans on the use of cell phones in schools, with New Jersey joining their ranks at the beginning of the year. An additional seven states have laws limiting the use of cell phones while in class but stop short of the “bell-to-bell” bans employed by the majority of states. These bans are the culmination of a movement led by educators, mental health professionals, and parents to remove a potent distraction from the classroom and help refocus America’s students on their studies. But are these laws effective enough to get a passing grade?

The answer to that question appears to be a resounding yes, but only after a spike in disciplinary rates during the first year of the bans. In the first month of a cell phone ban, one study found a 25% rise in suspension rates and a year-on-year increase in disciplinary rates, though this spike leveled off in the second year. After the initial learning curve, test scores increased by an average of 1.1% and improvements in classroom behavior were noted by teachers and administrative staff in states with bell-to-bell bans. On top of this, incidents of cyberbullying have decreased in schools after implementing a ban. 

However, some parents have voiced concern over the bans. 29% of parents surveyed indicated dissatisfaction with the bans, citing fears about not being able to talk with their children in the event of an emergency and not being able to monitor their location or coordinate afterschool pickups. Given the tragic prevalence of school shootings and other emergencies, these concerns are not without merit. Attempting to assuage these worries, many districts are still allowing students to have their phones at school—provided they are on silent and in the students’ backpacks. Alternatively, students may place their phone somewhere else in the classroom to minimize distractions.

Another attack levied at these bans claims they violate students’ First Amendment rights. Access to social media and other platforms facilitating political speech would probably fall within protected expressive activities. However, under the Tinker test, courts have long recognized that restrictions on free speech in schools are permissible if the speech materially and substantially interferes with appropriate discipline requirements. There must be a specific, concrete reason to anticipate this interference—not just a fear of some nebulous distraction. And given the data mentioned above and feedback from education professionals, these bans will likely succeed.

Nearly a quarter of eight-year-olds have a cell phone. That number jumps to 50% by age 10. Their presence in the classroom disrupts learning and discipline.

Certainly, states have an interest in regulating cell phones in the classroom. Banning their use during instructional time seems well suited to dealing with potential disruptions in learning. These bans can be contrasted with a similar movement that seems less likely to succeed: age verification and parental consent requirements on social media sites. Although a Mississippi law requiring these measures has been temporarily allowed to move forward, Justice Kavanaugh expressed skepticism over the law’s constitutionality. The difference between these two efforts hinges on the location and scope of the bans. In the school ban, the laws only effect the usage of cell phones while physically present in a school—an area of constitutional compromise, as detailed above under the Tinker test. But the social media restrictions are much broader in both scope and depth, and they will probably share the fate of Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n. and be found unconstitutional once the Mississippi law makes its way the Supreme Court.

Nearly a quarter of eight-year-olds have a cell phone. That number jumps to 50% by age 10. Their presence in the classroom disrupts learning and discipline. With these bans the proof is in the pudding, and their nationwide implementation feels inevitable. Going forward, school administrations should continue working with parents and teachers to strike the appropriate balance between keeping children focused while alleviating parents’ worries. That way, education scores, disciplinary rates, and safety concerns all get an A+.

Tysen Moy

Tysen attended the University of Montana for undergrad and majored in Political Science. In law school, he has served on the student Pro Bono Board and the American Constitutional Society Board.