Propublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates power abuse. Sign up for Dispatches. This is a newsletter that spotlights misconduct across the country, where you receive your stories in your inbox every week.
New laws in Georgia and New Mexico require harsher punishments for students or anyone else who pose a threat to schools, despite growing evidence that similar laws hold back students who don’t take risks to others.
Propublica and WPLN News documented that a 2024 Tennessee law that poses a threat of massive violence in schools led to a threat that cannot be threatened by rumors. In one case, a Hamilton County deputy arrested the autistic 13-year-old in August, saying his backpack would explode, but the teenager said he wanted to protect the bunny stuffed in inside.
Almost two months later, in the same county, adjutant chased and arrested an 11-year-old student at a family’s birthday party. The child later explained that one student asked if another student would shoot school tomorrow and explained that he answered “yes” for him. Last month, the public charter school agreed to pay the student’s family $100,000 to resolve a federal lawsuit alleging that school officials misreported him to police. The school also agreed to provide training on how to handle these types of cases, including reporting only “valid” threats to police.
Tennessee is asking schools to assess whether the threat of mass violence is effective before expelling students. However, the felony law does not hold police to the same standard, leading to the arrest of students who were not trying to disrupt or take the school away from threats.
At a recent legislative meeting in Tennessee, civil and disabled rights advocates have failed to change the law to specify that police can only arrest students who pose credible threats. They argued that very young students and students who behave destructively as a result of their disability should be excluded from felony charges.
Several Tennessee lawmakers on both parties expressed their dissatisfaction with the school threat law during the session, citing the harm caused to children who do not pose a real danger. “I’m still struggling with unintended consequences because I’m not completely satisfied with what we’ve done before,” Republican Sen. Kelly Roberts said at a committee hearing in April. “We’re still struggling to get it right.”
But Greg Mays, vice-chairman of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security, told the law committee in March “informed opinion” that the law has “deterrent effects” on threatening students. Mays told Propobrica that the number of threats his office is tracking has decreased since the law came into effect. His office did not immediately announce the number, rejecting requests for the number of threats he had previously tracked, calling the information “confidential.”
According to data propoblica obtained through record requests, the number of students charged for crime has not been reduced. From this past school year until the end of March, the number of charges for the threat of massive violence in juvenile courts jumped to 652. In both years, students are rarely “delinquent,” which amounts to conviction in an adult court. The youngest child ever charged this year is six.
Tennessee has strengthened its approach this year, rather than mitigating it. Congress added another high-level felony to the book for those who “willfully” pose a school threat to more than four people if they believe that the threat is “reasonably” carried out. Law and disability rights advocates told lawmakers they are worried that the new law will create more confusion among police and school officials dealing with the threat.
Despite protests over the rise in arrests in Tennessee, the two states continued to take its lead with laws that pass laws that collapse more violently with the threat of hoax.
In New Mexico, lawmakers increased charges of shooting threats from misdemeanor to felony in response to a wave of school threats the previous year. To be charged with a felony, a person must “intentionally and maliciously” communicate the threat of terrorizing others, causing evacuation of public buildings or encourage police to respond.
Critics of the bill warned that even if there is a requirement to prove their intention, it could be too vague and harmful to students.
“This broad definition could criminalize what is called a ‘thinking crime’ or ‘idol threat’ and affect statements by children and juveniles without fully understanding the outcome,” the office of public advocates argued, according to a previous similar version of the state’s analysis.
After the shooting of a 14-year-old at Appalachie High School in Georgia last September, state House Speaker John Burns vowed to take stricter actions against threatening students.
He sponsored a law that made it a felony to issue death threats to people at schools that terrorize people or cause evacuation. The law, which came into effect in April, says that someone could be charged with either the intention of causing such harm or the threat of “reckless neglect” of the harm.
Neither Burns nor the New Mexico bill sponsor responded to requests for comment.
Georgia also considered a bill that deals with people aged 13 to 17 who treat terroric threats at schools as adults in court. But after a push from advocates, Sen. Greg Drezal, a Republican author of the bill, removed the threat from the list of crimes that could lead to transfers to adult courts.
During a committee hearing in March, Dorezal acknowledged supporters’ concerns about the original bill language. “We recognize that there is a difference between people who actually commit these crimes and minors who are unfairly threatening, but perhaps they have no intention of actually following it,” he said.
Other states also considered passing severe penalties for school threats.
In Alabama, Republican Rep. Alan Baker sponsored a bill that would remove the requirement that threats be “reliable” and result in criminal charges. The bill passed easily in both rooms, but did not take the final steps necessary to pass the legislature.
Baker said the broader version of the penalty is intended to target hoax threats that cause panic in schools. The first offence is a misdemeanor. The subsequent threat is a felony. “You’re just talking about a very destructive type of scenario, even if it’s determined to be just a hoax,” Baker said. “That’s why it had to be a little more demanding.”
Baker told Propublica that he plans to reintroduce the bill for the next session.
Pennsylvania is considering laws that make threats to schools a felony, regardless of credibility. The bill also requires criminals to pay compensation, including compensation for employees spent on supply costs and response to threats.
Tennessee schools have agreed to pay $100,000 to the family of an 11-year-old student arrested under the School Threat Act
In a memo last December, Republican Sen. Michelle Brooks cited the threat of “cruel and very despaired hoax” after the Covenant School in Nashville shot as the reason for the proposal. “These calls have caused massive emergency responses and dangerous situations for students, teachers and public safety agencies,” she writes.
The Pennsylvania ACLU opposes the law, calling it a “broad extension” of current law that could lead to “excessive” costs for children.
The Pennsylvania Legislature will be postponed to the end of December.
Reported by Paige Pfleger of WPLN/Nashville Public Radio.
