Bill tied to fatal officer assault
The legislation, known in the House as House Bill 338 and often referred to by supporters as “Andy’s Law,” emerged after the Christmas 2024 killing of veteran corrections officer Andrew “Andy” Lansing at Ross Correctional Institution in Chillicothe. Investigators say an inmate entered an unattended guard station and fatally beat Lansing, an Army veteran and 24–year employee of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
In response, lawmakers drafted a broad prison-security package that increases penalties for inmates who assault or kill corrections staff and adds new sanctions for throwing bodily fluids at officers. Supporters in law enforcement and the guards’ union have framed the bill as a necessary answer to what they describe as a pattern of attacks, overdoses, and drug trafficking inside Ohio prisons.
Education and tablet access on the line
Tucked into the bill is a provision that would require “the elimination of all higher education programs at high security state correctional institutions,” effectively ending college and career-technical offerings for inmates in prisons classified as Level 3 and Level 4 facilities. The same proposal would also cut off access to electronic tablets in those higher-security prisons, tools inmates now use for communication, limited entertainment, and some educational content.
Data provided to lawmakers show that at least 831 inmates in Level 3 and 4 prisons are currently enrolled in higher education, with another 304 in career-technical programs delivered through partnerships with institutions such as Sinclair College, Ashland University, Wilmington College and Kent State University. Advocates estimate that more than 10 percent of Ohio’s incarcerated students could immediately lose access to college programming if the restriction takes effect, with the potential for wider fallout depending on how the state defines “high security” facilities.
Supporters cite consequences, incentives
Bill sponsors, including Rep. Mark Johnson of Chillicothe and Rep. Phil Plummer of Butler Township, argue that removing higher education from high-security prisons will serve as a consequence for serious misconduct and an incentive for incarcerated people to improve behavior and move to lower-security facilities. Johnson has said publicly that every inmate has a chance at an annual review, and that knowing education and other privileges are available at lower security levels could encourage better compliance with prison rules.
Supporters also link the education restriction to concerns about contraband, claiming without publicly provided evidence that some inmates exploit classes and tablets to help facilitate the spread of drugs inside prisons. The bill simultaneously tightens rules on visitation—ending full-contact visits in high-security prisons—and adds new criminal penalties aimed at drug sales behind bars, including expanded use of drug-sniffing dogs.
Critics warn of safety and reentry risks
Opponents ranging from the ACLU of Ohio to the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison argue the rollback of education has little to do with officer safety and could actually make prisons more dangerous. They point to national research showing postsecondary education programs in prison are associated with lower violence inside facilities and significantly better reentry outcomes, including reduced recidivism and stronger employment prospects after release.
Advocates also warn that cutting off Pell Grant–supported college classes in high-security settings undercuts federal efforts to expand prison education and will disproportionately affect incarcerated people with the highest needs and longest sentences. Public defenders and civil liberties groups have criticized the broader bill for layering mandatory sentences and restrictions on top of an already crowded prison system, saying lawmakers are using a high-profile tragedy to advance punitive measures only loosely connected to the circumstances of Lansing’s death.
What’s next in the Ohio Senate
House Bill 338 passed the Ohio House on a lopsided 82–3 vote late last year and now awaits hearings in the Senate, where sponsors say they expect it to advance. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has not taken a public position on the measure, with officials declining to comment on pending legislation even as they acknowledge the number of incarcerated students who would be affected.
Advocacy organizations, college partners and family members of incarcerated students are urging senators to strip or amend the education provision, arguing that any final version of the bill should preserve access to college and workforce training while addressing legitimate security concerns. If the Senate approves the measure without major changes and the governor signs it, Ohio would become one of the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to higher education access in high-security prisons, marking a sharp turn in state and federal policy trends over the past decade.