The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 9251·119th Congress·Introduced Jun 10, 2026

School Access to Naloxone Act of 2026

IntroducedHealthSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Morrison, Kelly [D-MN-3]
Committees
Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
Last action
Jun 10, 2026

Bottom line

The bill creates a federal grant program to help schools acquire and administer opioid overdose reversal medications, aiming to enhance emergency response capabilities in educational settings.

What it actually does

This bill, titled the 'School Access to Naloxone Act of 2026,' amends the Public Health Service Act to establish a new federal grant program. This program would provide funding to eligible entities to equip public and private elementary and secondary schools with drugs and devices for emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdoses, such as naloxone. Schools receiving grants must certify they have trained personnel, maintain a supply of these drugs, and ensure adequate civil liability protection for staff administering them.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill is a critical and proactive measure to address the ongoing opioid crisis, which increasingly affects younger populations and school communities. By providing schools with the resources to stock naloxone and train personnel, the bill creates a vital safety net that can save lives during an overdose emergency, ensuring that schools are prepared to respond effectively to a growing public health threat.

Opponents contend

Critics might express concerns that while well-intentioned, this bill could place an undue burden on schools, potentially diverting resources from core educational functions or prevention programs. Some may also question the appropriateness of schools becoming primary responders for opioid overdoses, suggesting it could inadvertently normalize drug use or that such responsibilities are better handled by external emergency services.

The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed evaluation by any interested reader.

Section 2(a)

Expanding Use of Funds for Opioid Overdose Treatment Administration

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This provision amends an existing section of the Public Health Service Act (Section 544(c)) to clarify that federal funds can be used not only for 'prescribing' drugs and devices for emergency opioid overdose treatment but also for 'administering' them. This change broadens the scope of federally funded activities to include direct intervention, ensuring that grant recipients can use funds for the practical application of overdose reversal medications.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupPublic health agencies and grant recipientsImpactIncreased flexibility in using federal funds for opioid overdose responseMechanismStatutory amendment to the Public Health Service ActScaleNational, affecting all entities receiving grants under PHSA Section 544

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this amendment is a necessary clarification that removes potential ambiguities and ensures federal funds can be effectively utilized for direct, life-saving administration of opioid overdose treatments, aligning with the urgent needs of the opioid crisis.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against this technical clarification, as it enhances the practical application of existing public health initiatives. Any broader opposition would likely stem from objections to the overall scope of federal involvement in opioid response.

Tradeoffs

This provision primarily offers a technical clarification, minimizing tradeoffs. It ensures that the intent of funding emergency opioid treatment is fully realized by explicitly allowing for administration, which is crucial for immediate response.

Section 3, inserting new Section 544A

Grants for Reducing Opioid Overdose Deaths in Elementary and Secondary Schools

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This section establishes a new grant program under the Public Health Service Act, allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award funds to eligible entities. These grants are specifically for providing drugs and devices (like naloxone) for emergency opioid overdose treatment in public and private elementary and secondary schools. To qualify, schools must certify they have trained personnel, maintain a supply of these medications, ensure trained staff are on premises during operating hours, and that their state's attorney general certifies adequate civil liability protection for personnel administering the drugs.

FOUND

Requires that for a school to receive grant funding, the State Attorney General of the state where the school is located must certify that the state's civil liability protection law adequately protects school personnel who administer drugs and devices for emergency opioid overdose treatment.

Section 544A(c)(4)

Why it matters:This provision is crucial for the practical implementation of the program, as it addresses a significant concern for school staff regarding legal exposure. It's a standard legislative practice to ensure legal clarity for those undertaking emergency actions, rather than an attempt to obscure the provision.

Case for: Proponents argue this certification is vital to ensure school personnel feel secure and are legally protected when performing life-saving actions, thereby encouraging widespread participation in the grant program and effective response to overdoses.

Case against: Critics might contend that this requirement could create an unnecessary bureaucratic barrier, potentially delaying or preventing schools in states with complex or insufficient liability laws from accessing crucial funding, leading to an uneven distribution of resources.

Estimated impact: This provision has a significant impact on the feasibility and speed of program implementation across different states, potentially influencing state legislative action on liability laws.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this