SB1137 forbids the Federal Communications Commission from preventing State or Federal correctional facilities from operating jamming systems inside their facilities to block wireless communications. The bill defines what a jamming system is and establishes a limited set of operational constraints and procedural steps facilities must follow before turning devices on.
This is significant because it carves out an affirmative right for prisons to use radio‑frequency jammers, narrowing the FCC’s practical control over interference inside correctional facilities while leaving open substantial questions about technical standards, spillover risk to the public network, and legal exposure for operators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits the FCC from preventing a State or Federal correctional facility from operating a jamming system inside the facility to disrupt wireless communications to or from contraband devices or to or from detained individuals. It provides a statutory definition of a jamming system and sets limited constraints on where and how such systems may operate.
Who It Affects
State and federal correctional facilities, corrections administrators, manufacturers and installers of RF jamming equipment, wireless carriers whose signals could be affected, the FCC (by reducing its preventive role), and local public‑safety agencies that may encounter interference.
Why It Matters
SB1137 creates a narrow statutory carveout that changes who controls the right to operate interference devices inside prisons. That shift has operational, technical, and legal implications for corrections budgets, carrier operations, public‑safety communications, and federal regulatory authority.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB1137 starts by defining a “jamming system” broadly: not only the radio‑frequency generators but also antennas, cabling, radiation patterns, power levels, antenna placement, and the related installation and interconnection work. That definition matters because the bill treats the full equipment stack as the regulated object rather than just a transmitter module.
The statute then says, in effect, that the FCC may not stop a State or Federal correctional facility from operating such a system inside the facility when the goal is to disrupt communications to or from a contraband device or to or from someone held in custody. The bill limits operation geographically: the jamming must be confined to the housing facilities of the prison where it’s installed.
For State facilities specifically, the State must pay the entire cost of procurement and operation; the bill places no analogous funding obligation on the federal Bureau of Prisons.Before turning a system on, a facility must consult with local law enforcement and “other public safety officials” in the area, and must submit a notification to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. The consultation requirement creates a role for local responders in predeployment planning but stops short of requiring their consent or an independent technical clearance process.
The notification duty is administrative rather than approvals‑based.Notably, the bill frames its grant of authority as “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” which is an affirmative override of other statutes or regulations that would otherwise prevent operation. The text does not, however, supply technical standards, frequency restrictions, certification procedures, safe‑harbor language from enforcement actions, or a mechanism to resolve cross‑boundary interference.
That leaves open practical questions about how facilities will avoid degrading commercial service, disrupting emergency calls, or triggering enforcement under other federal statutes. The result is a narrow statutory right to operate jammers coupled with broad operational ambiguities that corrections officials, carriers, and courts would have to sort out in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “jamming system” to include antennas, cabling, cable elements, power levels, radiation pattern, and antenna location and orientation—not just the transmitter.
Operation of a jamming system must be limited to the housing facilities of the correctional facility where the system is located.
If a State correctional facility installs a jamming system, the State must fund the full cost of the system and its operation; the bill does not create federal funding for State systems.
Before implementing a jamming system, a facility must consult local law enforcement and other public‑safety officials in the facility’s area.
The facility must submit a notification about the operation to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (the bill requires notification, not prior approval).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s short title, the "Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025." This is the formal label for statutory citation and has no operational effect on the substantive provisions that follow.
Definitions of Commission, correctional facility, and jamming system
Sets key terms used in the statute. Most consequential is the definition of “jamming system,” which lists components (antennas, cabling), functions (radiation pattern, power levels), and installation factors (location, orientation). By defining these elements, the bill makes clear that both hardware and installation parameters fall inside its scope—important for procurement specifications and for anyone assessing potential interference.
Substantive prohibition on FCC prevention
States that, notwithstanding other laws or regulations, the FCC may not prevent a State or Federal correctional facility from operating a jamming system within the facility to block communications to or from contraband devices or to or from an individual held there. The provision grants facilities an affirmative right to operate such systems in pursuit of those two enumerated objectives, shifting the practical control over in‑facility interference away from FCC preemption.
Operational limits, funding, consultation, and notification
Imposes four practical constraints: operations must be limited to housing areas; States must bear full costs for State facilities; facilities must consult local law enforcement and other public‑safety officials before implementing a system; and facilities must notify the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. These are procedural and fiscal controls rather than technical standards, meaning they shape how and who pays for deployment but do not prescribe engineering or mitigation measures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Correctional facility administrators: gain an explicit statutory ability to deploy jammers inside housing units, which they can use as a tool to reduce unauthorized inmate communications and associated criminal activity.
- State correctional systems that prioritize in‑facility signal control: receive a clear legal path to install equipment (though they must fund it), which can simplify procurement and operational planning.
- Manufacturers and integrators of RF mitigation/jamming equipment: stand to gain contracts and sales if facilities move forward with deployment, because the bill legitimizes the market for these systems within prisons.
Who Bears the Cost
- State governments (for State facilities): must pay all acquisition and operational expenses for systems in State facilities, which could be a material budget line for corrections departments.
- Wireless carriers and subscribers: face increased risk of unintentional service disruption, dropped calls, or degraded coverage near facilities, and may incur costs to monitor, mitigate, or litigate interference.
- Local public‑safety agencies and 911 systems: bear operational risk and potential mitigation burdens if jamming spills into public networks or affects emergency communications, while also being drawn into predeployment consultation without veto power.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a corrections‑centric public‑safety objective—allowing prisons to disrupt contraband communications to improve security—against system‑wide communications safety and regulatory coherence; it grants prisons operational authority while leaving the technical guardrails and liability questions unresolved, forcing a trade‑off between immediate correctional control and broader risks to commercial and emergency communications.
The bill creates a targeted statutory carveout of FCC authority but leaves critical technical and enforcement questions unanswered. It defines the hardware and installation elements of a jamming system but does not set power limits, frequency bands, testing protocols, certification processes, or mitigation requirements to prevent spillover.
That gap forces implementers to make engineering judgments without a national standard and increases the likelihood of harmful interference with commercial and emergency services.
The statute also alters the regulatory landscape without addressing legal exposure: it prevents the FCC from blocking in‑facility operation, but it does not explicitly provide immunity from other federal statutes, potential civil liabilities, or criminal penalties that might apply to radiative interference. Likewise, the consultation and notification requirements give local and federal officials a role in advance of deployment but do not create an independent clearance or dispute resolution mechanism.
Together, these choices reduce regulatory friction for prisons but increase operational uncertainty for carriers, public‑safety agencies, and courts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.