The use of seclusion and restraints on students with disabilities has been a major legal issue in recent years. Congress has repeatedly considered bills to limit and prohibit such use in K-12 schools, but the movement against such aversive procedures appears to have shifted to the state legislative level, with several states adding or strengthening laws restricting restraints in the wake of proposed federal legislation. As a companion to the recent update in "Communiqué" (Zirkel, 2016) of Zirkel and Lyons' (2011) case law analysis concerning restraints, this article updates of Bon and Zirkel's (2014) case law analysis concerning timeout and seclusion. This update is limited to court decisions found for the most recent 3-year period, which ended in mid-2016. The results and recommendations mirror, albeit with blurrier edges, those for the parallel analysis of the restraints case law (Zirkel, 2016). Although professional opinion has shifted rather markedly against the use of seclusion and time-out in common connection to, but imprecise differentiation from, restraints (e.g., Freeman & Sugai, 2013; Nishimura, 2015), district leaders do not share the same sense of restrictiveness (e.g., Pudelski, 2012). Although these conflicting views are reflected at the policy making level in terms of failed Congressional bills but increasingly restrictive state laws, the primary legal battleground has been in court. This systematic update of the case law shows that the previous pattern continues with only minor variations.