Federal ban on school restraint and seclusion creates enforceable student rights
S. 3448 — Keeping All Students Safe Act · Filed by Christopher Murphy (D-CT) · 17 cosponsors · Introduced Dec 11, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill prohibits schools receiving federal funds from using seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and dangerous physical restraints on students. It requires states to adopt policies, train staff in crisis intervention, report restraint incidents disaggregated by student demographics, and establishes federal grants to help schools implement positive behavioral supports and de-escalation programs instead. Students and parents can sue schools for violations, and the federal government can withhold funding from non-compliant programs.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a direct prohibition on harmful restraint practices in federally funded schools, backed by enforcement through funding withholding and private litigation. It is a protective measure, not a deregulation or carve-out.
What the text implies
- Mandatory disaggregated reporting of restraint incidents by race, disability, and economic status will expose systemic disparities in school discipline and may drive policy changes beyond this bill's scope.
- The requirement that states approve crisis intervention training programs creates a new regulatory gatekeeping function; states with weak approval standards may undermine the bill's intent.
- Private right of action shields individual school personnel from liability but holds the school/program liable, creating incentive for schools to invest in training and prevention rather than defend restraint use.
- Exemption for law enforcement officers and school security guards from the 'program personnel' definition may create a loophole if schools increasingly rely on armed officers for behavioral management.
- The bill does not address restraint in juvenile detention, residential treatment, or other non-school settings where similar harms occur.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Students gain explicit legal protections against harmful restraint practices and seclusion, with enforceable remedies through private lawsuits and federal oversight. Schools are required to shift toward evidence-based de-escalation and positive behavioral supports, which research shows improve school climate and reduce harm. The bill creates transparency through mandatory disaggregated reporting, exposing disparities in restraint use by race, disability status, and economic disadvantage.
Who stands to gain
- training and professional development providers (crisis intervention, PBIS, de-escalation)
- mental health and behavioral health service providers
- restorative justice program consultants
- trauma-informed care training organizations
Named in the bill
U.S. Department of Education, State Educational Agencies, Local Educational Agencies, Head Start agencies, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Protection and Advocacy Systems, School Resource Officers, Special Education Schools
Where it stands
17 cosponsors: 16 Democrats, 1 Independents.
- Dec 11, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Dec 11, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
3 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $330,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 15 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.
Christopher Murphy, the sponsor, reported $-16,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Epilepsy Foundation — $150,000 on 1 filing
- National Down Syndrome Society — $100,000 on 2 filings
- Arc of the United States — $80,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (39,253 characters) on May 5, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Federal ban on school restraint and seclusion creates enforceable student rights” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s3448 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.