HR-2739-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
What it does
The bill would bar the use of any federal funds to hire, maintain, or train state, tribal, or local law enforcement officers assigned to, contracted with, or employed by schools, local school agencies, or Head Start programs, and would amend the COPS grant statute to match. It would direct the Education Secretary to award competitive grants to school districts that agree to have no such officers on campus, with up to $5 billion authorized. Grant money would have to go to counselors, psychologists, nurses, social workers, and similar staff, and could not be used for surveillance tools, arming staff, or data-sharing with immigration agencies. Districts would also file annual public reports on arrests and referrals, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
Students who are disproportionately arrested or disciplined, including Black, Native American, Latino, and disabled students, if the bill's premise holds. School counselors, psychologists, nurses, and social workers, who may gain new positions. Districts that already want to end police contracts and need funding to replace them. Families wary of school information reaching immigration enforcement.
Who is hurt
Districts that keep police in schools, which would lose federal funding for officers and could not receive the new grants. School resource officers and local police agencies that staff them, who may lose positions or funding. Students, staff, and parents who view officers as important for emergency response and safety. Districts that want metal detectors, cameras, or armed staff, which could not buy them with grant funds. Districts would also face new reporting duties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that research has found no evidence that police on campus make schools safer, while schools with an officer arrested students at five times the rate of comparable schools without one. They contend that millions of students attend schools with police but no counselor, nurse, psychologist, or social worker, so redirecting money toward mental health staff addresses unmet needs and reduces racial disparities in arrests.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that police in schools deter violence and give schools trained responders in an emergency, and that local districts, not Congress, should decide how to protect their students. They contend that conditioning grants on removing all officers and banning cameras, metal detectors, and armed staff limits local choice, and that the bill's research claims on safety and arrests remain contested.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Spending Clause, and conditions on grants must meet the South Dakota v. Dole (1987) test, including that conditions be unambiguous, related to the program's purpose, and not coercive. Because districts could choose whether to apply, a coercion challenge appears less likely, though education is traditionally a state and local function under the Tenth Amendment.
Checks and balances
Congress would restrict executive grant spending and give the Education Secretary discretion to run a competitive grant program; districts' participation is voluntary, and oversight comes through annual public reports and future appropriations, since the $5 billion is only authorized.
Historical precedent
Congress has funded school police before through the COPS in Schools program and the Byrne grants that this bill would restrict, so this bill reverses that direction rather than following a prior enacted ban.