Top Law School Bans Laptops and Phones for First-Year Students

One of America’s top law schools is so worried about AI-enabled cheating that it’s forcing first-year students to ditch phones and laptops and go back to pen, paper, and face-to-face thinking.

Story Snapshot

University of Chicago Law School will ban phones, laptops, and tablets in all core first-year classes as part of a new AI strategy.
School leaders say the goal is to protect real critical thinking and judgment by removing AI at key moments like lectures and exams.
The plan also requires students to learn how to use AI for research and writing later, under close faculty review.
Critics warn device bans may not stop cheating outside class and could leave new lawyers less prepared for AI-heavy workplaces.

Top law school goes “analog” to fight AI cheating

The University of Chicago Law School, one of the country’s most elite legal programs, has unveiled a sweeping artificial intelligence strategy that starts by stripping technology out of first-year classrooms. Starting in the 2026–2027 school year, all required core first-year courses will pilot a rule that bans phones, laptops, tablets, and similar devices during class. That means future corporate and public-interest lawyers will take notes by hand and discuss cases without screens between them and the professor.

School leaders say this “analog” first year is not about hating technology, but about saving something they see as more important: the ability to think for yourself. The strategy statement explains that students must “learn to think critically, strategically and independently without relying on AI,” especially when they are still learning the basics of law. To back this up, all exams in first-year required courses will be taken in person, on paper, with no internet or apps allowed, cutting off AI tools at the most tempting moments.

Three-part plan: limit AI, build human skills, then teach AI

The new approach is built around three major goals: creating teaching methods that resist AI shortcuts, lifting up “essential human” skills, and training students in ethical, effective AI use for the real world. In practice, that means different rules at different stages of law school. First-year doctrinal classes are almost fully device-free, with only narrow exceptions such as designated classroom “scribes” or tech for interactive polling when a professor decides it is needed.

Legal research and writing, the backbone of every lawyer’s craft, will follow a layered system that starts with no AI at all. In the fall, students must write using only their own reasoning and research skills. Later in the year, they may bring in AI tools for tasks like research, revision, and practicing oral arguments, but only under strict guidelines and with joint review of both their writing and their AI use by their instructors. This step-by-step design tries to keep students from using AI as a crutch while still preparing them for AI-heavy legal workplaces.

Cheating fears, deep skepticism, and a bigger crisis of trust

The law school’s committee started working on AI rules back in 2023, after faculty saw how quickly generative AI tools were spreading and how easily they could be used to cheat or dodge hard thinking. Yet the school has released no public data on how often students actually used AI to cheat there, so outsiders cannot tell whether the device ban is a scalpel or a sledgehammer. This gap fuels the growing public worry that powerful institutions act first and explain later, while everyday people are kept in the dark.

Outside the law school, teachers and experts warn that simply banning devices does not make deeper problems go away. Studies and opinion pieces argue that cheating comes more from pressure, fear, and weak course design than from the tools themselves, and that harsh rules can fall hardest on students who already struggle. Online, some incoming students doubt how well the ban can be enforced, pointing out that the school is not installing metal detectors or physically taking phones away, and predicting quiet rule-breaking. That kind of skepticism echoes a wider mood in the country: many believe rules are written by elites, but real enforcement is spotty and unfair.

Does “going analog” help or hurt future lawyers?

Critics, including voices quoted in coverage of similar policies at other top schools, argue that banning devices in class blocks many legitimate uses of AI at the very moment when judges, law firms, and companies expect new lawyers to understand these tools. They worry that students trained to avoid AI in basic tasks might be less ready to handle AI-driven document review, contract analysis, or research tools once they enter practice. So far, there is no hard evidence showing that device bans reduce AI cheating more than other, less extreme methods.

🚨 EDUCATION UPDATE: A new approach to fighting AI-assisted cheating: fewer devices in the classroom.

The University of Chicago Law School is limiting phone and laptop use among first-year students, sparking a wider conversation about technology, learning, and academic…

— Global News Wire (@AfolabiI24434) July 9, 2026

At the same time, University of Chicago’s plan does not push AI out of legal education altogether. Upper-level electives and clinics are designed to become labs for supervised AI use, including building new tools to help people who cannot afford lawyers. Major research papers will require live oral discussions with professors to confirm that students truly understand their topics and are not just repeating AI-written text. This mix of strict limits and targeted training reflects a larger struggle in American institutions today: how to keep human judgment at the center while powerful technologies race ahead faster than government rules, school policies, or public trust can keep up.