HR-6617-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Donald Beyer (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and any physical restraint that restricts breathing or blood flow in schools and programs that receive federal financial assistance. It would allow physical restraint only as a last resort when a student poses an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and only by trained and certified personnel. The bill would require states to submit annual compliance plans, mandate public reporting of restraint incidents broken down by student demographics, authorize $40 million per year in grants to states for training and prevention programs, and create a private right of action allowing students or their parents to sue programs in federal or state court for violations.
Who benefits
Students with disabilities, who are disproportionately subjected to restraint and seclusion in schools — particularly those with individualized education programs (IEPs) or Section 504 plans. Students of color, who federal data show are restrained at higher rates than white peers. Parents of students with behavioral or psychiatric conditions who would gain notification rights, mandatory post-incident meetings, and legal recourse. Disability rights advocacy organizations and protection and advocacy systems, which would gain expanded investigative authority. Early childhood program participants in Head Start. Students in Bureau of Indian Education and Department of Defense schools, which are explicitly covered. Mental health professionals and crisis intervention trainers, who would see increased demand for their services.
Who is hurt
School districts and local educational agencies, which would face new compliance costs, mandatory training requirements, reporting burdens, and potential liability. Teachers and school staff who currently use restraint or seclusion as behavioral management tools and would need to adopt alternative approaches. States with existing, less restrictive policies would need to overhaul their frameworks to comply. Private schools that serve students receiving special education services under IDEA would be covered and face new obligations. School resource officers and security guards would face new training mandates and conduct restrictions. Taxpayers in states with high compliance costs, even with partial federal grant offset. Programs that cannot quickly scale up crisis intervention training may face funding withholding penalties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal data from the Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection consistently show tens of thousands of restraint and seclusion incidents annually in U.S. schools, with students with disabilities and students of color subjected at dramatically higher rates — a documented civil rights disparity. They contend that seclusion and prone restraint carry documented risks of psychological trauma and death, and that the absence of a uniform federal floor has produced a patchwork of state laws leaving many students unprotected. Supporters further argue that evidence-based alternatives such as positive behavioral interventions and supports have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing dangerous incidents without compromising school safety.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that school discipline and safety are traditionally state and local functions under the Tenth Amendment, and that a federal mandate with funding-withholding enforcement imposes a one-size-fits-all framework on communities with vastly different student populations and resource levels. They contend that eliminating seclusion and restricting restraint without adequate alternatives in place could leave school staff without effective tools to manage acute behavioral crises, potentially endangering other students and staff — particularly in under-resourced schools that cannot quickly implement the required training programs. Opponents also argue that the private right of action and the abrogation of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity expose schools to significant litigation costs that could divert resources from instruction.