California Proposes Statewide Smartphone Ban in Schools

New bipartisan legislation aims to restrict student cellphone use during school hours by 2027.

Apr. 17, 2026 at 10:55am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A solitary student sits alone at a school desk, the classroom quiet and still, with warm sunlight and deep shadows creating a cinematic, nostalgic mood.A pensive student sits alone at their desk, the classroom quiet and still, as the debate over smartphone use in schools continues.Los Angeles Today

California lawmakers have introduced a new bipartisan bill, AB 1644, that would impose a statewide ban on student use of smartphones during school hours by July 1, 2027. The proposed legislation comes after a previous 2024 law signed by Governor Newsom that allowed local districts to set their own policies on cellphone use. If passed, California would join over 10 other states that have already enacted similar bell-to-bell smartphone bans in schools.

Why it matters

The bill's authors argue that excessive smartphone use by students is negatively impacting their academic performance, mental health, and social well-being. However, some education groups have opposed previous legislation, arguing that these decisions are best made at the local level based on the unique needs of each community.

The details

AB 1644 was co-authored by a bipartisan group of California Assemblymembers including Josh Hoover, Al Muratsuchi, Josh Lowenthal, and Buffy Wicks. If passed, the new law would replace a 2024 bill signed by Governor Newsom that allowed local school districts to set their own policies on cellphone use. The proposed statewide ban would go into effect by July 1, 2027.

  • In 2024, Governor Newsom signed legislation allowing local school districts to set their own policies on cellphone use.
  • AB 1644 will be heard by the Assembly Education Committee on April 22, 2026.

The players

Josh Hoover

A Republican Assemblymember representing Folsom and one of the co-authors of AB 1644.

Al Muratsuchi

A Democratic Assemblymember representing Torrance and one of the co-authors of AB 1644.

Buffy Wicks

A Democratic Assemblymember representing Oakland and one of the co-authors of AB 1644.

California Teachers Association

The state's teachers union, which supported a previous 2024 bill restricting cellphone use in schools.

California School Boards Association

An organization that opposed the 2024 cellphone restriction bill, arguing that these decisions are best made at the local level.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Smartphones are incredible devices that can be helpful in so many ways. But they are also incredibly disruptive, distracting and addictive — and we know that children's mental health, attention span, and social wellbeing are being impacted.”

— Buffy Wicks, Assemblymember

“Research clearly shows that excessive smartphone use leads to negative academic and mental health outcomes, including reduced focus, increased depression and anxiety and lower overall social and emotional well-being.”

— Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember

“Mobile device use in the classroom can be both distracting and harmful based on students' urge to text or check notifications as they pop up on the screen, off task behaviors or academic dishonesty.”

— California Teachers Association

“These decisions are best made at the local level by people who understand, reside, are invested in and accountable in the communities they serve. This legislation goes against the precepts of local control by taking the decision-making process out of the hands of the duly elected local governing board and requiring them to adopt a policy.”

— California School Boards Association

What’s next

AB 1644 now heads to the Assembly Education Committee, where it will be heard on April 22, 2026.

The takeaway

This proposed legislation highlights the ongoing debate over how to balance the benefits and drawbacks of student smartphone use in schools. While some argue for a statewide ban to address mental health and academic concerns, others believe these decisions should remain in the hands of local districts to best serve their unique communities.