According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 240 are currently indeterminate. The primary reason for this uncertainty is the lack of reliable information on how many instances of noncompliance might arise, which directly affects the enforcement of civil penalties established by the bill. These penalties include $5,000 for a first violation and $25,000 for subsequent violations, with each day of continued noncompliance constituting a separate violation.

While the bill allows the Attorney General to investigate and bring enforcement actions and provides for a private right of action, the state cannot project how frequently these mechanisms will be triggered. Therefore, revenue estimates from the civil penalties are unavailable. Any penalties collected would be deposited into the General Revenue Account 469 – the Compensation to Victims of Crime Fund.

Operationally, the bill is not expected to require significant new state resources. Agencies involved, including the Office of the Attorney General and Office of Court Administration, indicated that any administrative responsibilities could likely be handled using existing resources. However, without a clear estimate of legal or administrative activity resulting from enforcement, the potential fiscal burden on the judicial system and political subdivisions remains uncertain.

For local governments, the fiscal implications are also unknown. Compliance may involve policy revisions, signage updates, or restructuring of facility access policies, but the extent of these changes—and their associated costs—will vary based on existing practices and facility types. Without knowing how rigorously the law will be enforced or challenged, the financial impact to school districts, municipalities, and colleges cannot be confidently predicted.

SB 240, the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, aims to reinforce biologically based standards for access to multiple-occupancy restrooms, locker rooms, and similar facilities in government-operated buildings, including schools, colleges, shelters, and correctional institutions. The bill defines “biological sex” using physical criteria and birth records and mandates that facilities be designated and used accordingly. Supporters of the bill argue it protects the privacy, safety, and dignity of women and girls in traditionally sex-separated spaces, particularly in light of growing concerns about policies allowing access based on gender identity.

The bill creates a framework for enforcement through civil penalties and authorizes both the Attorney General and private individuals to bring legal action against noncompliant entities. It also allows for reasonable exceptions in situations involving medical emergencies, children, and individuals needing assistance. While the bill is firmly grounded in affirming a biological understanding of sex, it also permits institutions to create single-occupancy spaces as an alternative, providing flexibility without abandoning core standards.

From a liberty-aligned perspective that holds to the reality of two biological sexes, SB 240 upholds the principle of objective truth in law and protects the public from compelled accommodation of subjective identities. However, the bill’s enforcement mechanisms—particularly the inclusion of fee-shifting penalties against legal challengers and extensive immunity provisions—may be overly broad and could undermine due process. These elements risk unnecessary legal entanglements and should be amended to narrow the focus to compliance and clarity without unduly shielding government actions from accountability.

Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 240 while also suggesting it be amended to be improved as described above. The bill affirms essential principles of privacy and biological integrity and should move forward, but key enforcement provisions should be refined to ensure the legislation remains constitutionally sound and practically enforceable.

• Individual Liberty: The bill affirms the right of individuals—particularly women and girls—to expect privacy and safety in public facilities based on clear biological distinctions. It preserves sex-separated spaces in public schools, colleges, shelters, and correctional facilities, reinforcing a culture that acknowledges and respects biological differences. This upholds the liberty of individuals who do not wish to be compelled to share sensitive spaces with members of the opposite sex. From a biologically rooted perspective, the bill protects the broader public’s rights to personal security and bodily privacy.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces that individuals must navigate public life based on biological reality, not subjective identity claims. It supports personal responsibility by encouraging individuals to use facilities consistent with their sex while allowing for reasonable accommodations (e.g., single-occupancy options) when needed. Public institutions are not required to deny reality or abandon order to accommodate identity-based preferences. Instead, the law allows for special cases—such as disability or child care—while maintaining boundaries grounded in biology.
• Free Enterprise: The bill applies only to government-operated or controlled facilities and does not mandate changes for private businesses, nonprofits, or religious organizations. As such, it does not interfere with the operation of the free market or impose regulatory burdens on the private sector. Its principles could influence cultural expectations, but the law itself leaves private enterprise untouched.
• Private Property Rights: Because the bill is restricted to public entities, it does not infringe on private property rights. It respects the distinction between public and private domains, allowing private property owners to determine their own policies without interference. This restraint helps preserve a key liberty principle while establishing a uniform policy for publicly funded spaces.
• Limited Government: While the bill sets a statewide standard consistent with biological norms and seeks to limit controversial or inconsistent local policies, its enforcement provisions risk expanding government authority. The bill includes civil penalties, a private right of action and initially included immunity provisions and fee-shifting measures that could suppress legal challenges and broaden executive enforcement authority. Though these provisions were softened in the Committee Substitute, elements of heavy-handed enforcement remain. Amending these components would ensure the law defends liberty without expanding government beyond its proper constitutional bounds.

• HB 2062 (Same As)
• HB 239 (Same As)