WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 2285

Local Education Agencies - As introduced, requires the principal of a public school in which the students named as the petitioner and respondent in an order of protection are both enrolled to remove the student who is named as the respondent from any classroom or school-sponsored event or activity shared with the student who is named as the petitioner for the period of time for which the order of protection is in effect. - Amends TCA Title 36 and Title 49.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Richard Briggs

Schools must separate students named in protective orders from shared classes and activities, prioritizing the petitioner's safety throughout the order's duration.

Pub. Ch. 862
#localeducationagencies
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 2285

Legislative bill overview

SB 2285 requires public school principals to physically separate students who are involved in active orders of protection—one as a petitioner (the protected party) and one as a respondent (the restrained party). The bill mandates this separation across all shared classrooms and school-sponsored activities for the duration of the protective order.

Why is this important

Orders of protection are legal documents issued when a court finds credible evidence of harassment, threat, or abuse. Schools currently have discretion in how to manage these situations. This bill creates a mandatory, standardized response that prioritizes the safety and education of the protected student by eliminating their exposure to the restrained student during the school day.

Potential points of contention

  • Implementation feasibility: Schools may struggle to accommodate separation requirements in small districts, specialized programs, or schools with limited class sections, potentially requiring schedule changes that disrupt educational continuity for both students
  • Educational access concerns: The respondent student's right to free public education must be balanced against the protective order; critics may argue mandatory removal could constitute denial of educational access or push-out policies
  • Due process and accuracy: Protective orders vary in their evidentiary standards (emergency, temporary, or final orders have different legal weights); the bill doesn't specify which order types trigger mandatory separation, risking overly broad application

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.