Michigan House Bill HB4141

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/26/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Report Pass: 5/14/25
• Engrossed: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/21/26
• Report Pass: 1/21/26
• Enrolled: 1/22/26
• Chaptered: 2/18/26
• Passed: 2/18/26

Caption

House Bill 4141 of 2025 (Public Act 2 of 2026)

Summary

HB 4141 amends Michigan’s Revised School Code to require each school district board and public school academy board to adopt a wireless communications device policy beginning in the 2026-2027 school year. The required policy must prohibit student use of wireless communications devices on school grounds during instructional time, while allowing districts to impose even stricter limits if they choose. The bill defines wireless communications devices broadly to include phones and other internet-capable or messaging devices, but excludes basic telephones that cannot access apps or the internet. The policy must also include enforcement procedures and be posted on the school’s website. The bill creates several mandatory exemptions, including medically necessary devices, district-owned instructional devices, devices used for special education or disability accommodations, teacher-approved lesson-specific use, and emergency situations under a school emergency operations plan. It also repeals existing Section 1303 of the Revised School Code and replaces it with the new Section 1303a. The act took immediate effect and is tied to enactment of Senate Bill 495.

Impact

The bill changes state education law by imposing a statewide minimum standard for student wireless device restrictions during instructional time in public school districts and public school academies. It requires local boards to adopt compliant policies, but preserves local discretion to add further restrictions and to design enforcement mechanisms. The measure affects students, school administrators, and school boards, while expressly protecting certain uses related to health, disability accommodations, instruction, and emergencies.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests the bill ultimately had strong support, especially by the time it reached final passage and immediate effect votes in both chambers. However, the earlier House third-reading vote was defeated, indicating the proposal was initially more controversial or lacked sufficient support before later revisions or negotiations. The final votes show broad bipartisan approval, with only limited opposition in the House and Senate.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on whether the state should mandate a uniform phone-use restriction policy versus leaving such decisions to local school districts, and on how broad the prohibition should be during the school day. Potential concerns also include enforcement burden, student discipline, and whether the rule could interfere with family communication or student safety. Supporters appear to have emphasized classroom focus and consistency, while opponents likely questioned the need for a statewide mandate and the practicality of implementation.