Texas school districts cannot keep prohibited library materials simply because no parent has challenged them, a Texas Education Agency attorney told senators during a committee hearing.
The Senate Committee on Education examined the implementation of Senate Bill 13 on Wednesday. The 2025 law establishes restrictions on library materials, requires school board approval for acquisitions, expands parental oversight of the library catalog including what library materials their children can access, and requires temporary restrictions on challenged materials.
Harmful materials subject to removal are defined as “pervasively vulgar, educationally unsuitable, indecent content or profane content” in SB 13.
Sen. Brent Hagenbuch (R–Denton) said that while developing the law, lawmakers thought that “rather than require a complete, exhaustive review, we’re going to rely on local people. Parents can have access to the library. They can challenge books.”
Yet parents have complained that despite the law, school districts are keeping explicit materials available to students.
However, Von Byer, general counsel for Texas Education Agency (TEA), noted that the wording of SB 13 prohibits the possession, acquisition, and purchase of harmful materials.
Byer clarified that schools must comply with SB 13 for both new and existing books.
“School districts would not be in compliance with the law if they possessed those books even before the law was put in place,” he said.
Citizens for Education Reform founder Susan Perez asked lawmakers “Whose responsibility is it? Because Senate Bill 13 says the district cannot possess the sexually explicit books, and the schools that we are familiar with are waiting until a book is challenged before they even look at it.”
Shannon Ayers with Citizens Defending Freedom said, “Parents are still finding profane and indecent content in school libraries, and they’re being forced to challenge books that should never have been there in the first place.”
Stephen Lara, a leader of the Lubbock Turning Point USA chapter, said, “We have identified over 1,000 books in Lubbock ISD libraries that contain harmful and inappropriate material accessible to minors, and some of this material is so incredibly vile that they’re actually banned from TDCJ. And yet, despite bringing these major concerns directly to the school board, these books have remained available to minors.”
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) maintains a list of sexually explicit materials banned from state prisons. Parents have found books from the TDCJ list in children’s school libraries.
Jesse Levis, founder and principal analyst for Library Census, said the company found “True erotica. Think BDSM, bestiality, blood play, depictions of coerced zombie porn, and more” in school libraries.
Yet Ayers noted that despite these findings, there are still questions regarding the clarity and implementation of the law. “Legal counsel at one district even suggested that there was enough ambiguity in SB 13 that the district was unlikely to face consequences for approving books containing profane and indecent content.”
Witnesses said they have had difficulties with challenging library materials and in the original vetting process.
SB 13 requires that parents have access to the library catalog and a library material challenge process.
“The reconsideration form is now in the middle of a parent information paragraph. … It took me 10 minutes to find it, and I’m very familiar with the website,” said Perez.
According to Levis, 28 percent of districts have no public catalog. “Many districts that say they’re in compliance still have not audited their full catalog, and many aren’t fully vetting new books for purchase,” said Levis.
Ayers shared an example in Frisco ISD, in which the approval board was given a proposed purchase list of almost 4,000 titles and only two weeks for review. Ayers said they “rubber-stamped” the list for approval.
Perez said that “Lubbock purchased 13,000 books this year. I never saw when that was available, and 30 days is not enough time for the public to observe that. I would recommend that it be from October to February.”
Witnesses also noted the needs for additional clarity in SB 13.
“Senate Bill 13 didn’t quite clarify that if it has indecent passages, or if it has profanity throughout, or grossly profane, as in the definition, it needs to be removed. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the book says, but that’s not real clear,” said Perez.
According to an analysis by Texas Policy Research, SB 13, “relies too heavily on decentralized local control and vague statutory definitions, such as ‘indecent’ or ‘pervasively vulgar’—which are open to subjective interpretation. … The lack of state-level oversight, civil penalties, or injunctive relief further undermines the bill’s effectiveness.”
Lawmakers are expected to consider additional means to ensure explicit and profane materials are removed from school libraries during the upcoming legislative session in January.
