Month: July 2025

Cameron Montemayor

ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (News-Press NOW) — Students across the Show-Me state will see sweeping new cell phone restrictions starting in the upcoming school year in K-12 classrooms, part of a new law signed Tuesday that includes exceptions for certain emergencies.

The measure is part of a wide-ranging education bill — Senate Bill 68 — that was signed Wednesday by Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe. The policy states that beginning in the 2025-26 school year, each Missouri K-12 school district, including charter schools, must have a written policy restricting students’ use of phones.

The policy must include prohibiting students from displaying or using the device during the entire school day, including during instructional time, mealtimes and between classes, with certain exceptions for things like medical emergencies, natural disasters and other circumstances identified by a district. 

In a statement to News-Press NOW, St. Joseph School District Superintendent Ashly McGinnis said the district will be updating its handbooks and suggesting policy changes for the board that align with the new law, as well as providing communication to staff and families.

“Senate Bill 68 addresses several school-related issues, including the impact of student cell phone use. Research continues to show that phones can be a major distraction from learning and lead to increased discipline challenges for teachers. We believe this part of the bill will support a focused learning environment for all students,” the statement read.

Currently, the St. Joseph School District prohibits cell phone usage at any point of the day for elementary students. For middle and high schoolers, they are only allowed to have their phone before school, during lunch and after school. Cell phones are regularly monitored by teachers, campus supervisors, principals, lunchroom staff and other adults in the building.

On the first offense, phones are confiscated and picked up at the end of the day by the student. On subsequent offenses, phones are confiscated and picked up at the end of the day by a parent, consequences may include loss of privilege and the development of an individualized check-in plan.

The bill does not require phones to be locked away, meaning school board officials will have to decide whether devices will be put in designated areas or if students can keep the devices with them.  

“It will be a big change,” St. Joseph Board of Education President LaTonya Williams said. “As a member of the school board I know the importance of eliminating as many extra distractions in the classroom as we can … so I think it’s a good thing. I want for people to realize what you did before cell phones, you were still able to contact your children at school if need be.”

She anticipates changes will receive push back from students and even parents who have become dependent on cell phones for direct communication during school. 

Williams said cellphone overuse is a challenge that isn’t limited to K-12 schools, calling it the “number one” challenge for many before and after-school programs locally as well. She stressed that parents will have to be a critical part of the equation to build healthier cell phone habits outside of school that can then be applied to school and life.

“I’m just asking the parents. We need your help. I know these are your children, and you want access on your children at all times, but our job at the school district is to educate those kids,” she said. “If the parents will help us implement these rules, it will be easier on the district to implement them.”

Each district will be required to describe how it intends to discipline students if they violate the policy, as well as any exceptions to allow for cell phone usage in certain circumstances. Phones are also permitted when necessary to ensure compliance with federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act, including for Individualized Education Programs (IEP). 

Polling conducted by Saint Louis University and YouGov this year showed widespread voter support for banning cell phones in schools, with over 70% of likely Missouri voters favoring prohibiting students from accessing cell phones during regular instructional activities across all K–12 schools.

The bill also says that a school district or charter school employee or volunteer will be immune from any liability if the employee or volunteer acts in good faith and follows the proper disciplinary procedures.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story has been updated to correct the spelling of Ashly McGinnis. News-Press NOW apologizes for this error.

Click here to follow the original article.

Rebecca Evans

ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (News-Press NOW) — The St. Joseph Police Department recently conducted a comprehensive active shooter training event designed to enhance officer readiness and improve community safety in the face of potential critical incidents.

The training comes as schools across the nation continue to face the grim reality of gun violence. According to an Education Week analysis, there have already been 7 school shootings this year, resulting in injuries or deaths. Since 2018, there have been 228 of these shootings nationwide. These sobering figures highlight the urgent need for preparedness and swift action in the event of a school shooting or other active shooter scenario.

The recent drill, held at Skaith Elementary School, brought together law enforcement personnel to participate in realistic, scenario-based drills under the guidance of the department’s Training Unit.

“We just want to reassure people that we are doing everything we can to make sure things are as safe as possible,” said Shannon Nulte, Director of Student Services with St. Joseph School District. “In this world, we just don’t know when these kinds of threats might pop up, but we are as prepared as we can be. We continue to learn. We continue to grow and keep things safer and safer.” 

Led by Major John Olszowka and Officer Peters, the event emphasized quick response tactics, coordination between units, threat neutralization, and civilian rescue operations.

Officers engaged in multiple high-stress simulations designed to mirror real-life active shooter scenarios, focusing on both individual decision-making and team-based strategies

“It kind of gives you the sense of how you’d react in these situations,” said one of SJPD’s newest officers, Matthew Weathermon, “ It’s something that not a lot of people really think about how or what they’ll do in a scenario like this so it’s good to get the exposure.”

As threats and challenges evolve, the SJPD remains proactive in ensuring its officers are prepared—not only to respond but to lead with professionalism and confidence during any emergency.

For more information on officer training visit the Police Training website.

Click here to follow the original article.

Associated Press

By HOLLY RAMER and MIKE CATALINI – Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire said Thursday he will certify a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected by President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and issue a preliminary injunction blocking it.

Judge Joseph LaPlante announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order will follow. The order will include a seven-day stay to allow for appeal, he said.

The class is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who originally included parents as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

At issue is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.

LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs, and his team have been inundated by families who are confused and fearful about the executive order, he said. Thursday’s ruling “is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” he said.

Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump’s order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it.

In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.

As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization.

Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.

“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”

The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife’s father is a U.S. citizen.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.

___ Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.

Click here to follow the original article.