Federal Judge Permanently Enjoins Texas READER Act

Estimated Time to Read: 8 minutes

On October 21, 2025, United States District Judge Alan D. Albright issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of major provisions of the Texas READER Act, formally declaring portions of the law unconstitutional. The decision halts the state’s vendor-rating system for school library materials and concludes more than a year of litigation surrounding House Bill 900, a measure originally intended to restrict sexually explicit materials in Texas public schools.

While the ruling represents a significant setback for supporters of stronger library content standards, it does not diminish the importance of protecting students from inappropriate content. Instead, it underscores the ongoing challenge of crafting legislation that achieves that goal while remaining consistent with constitutional limits. Earlier this year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 13 in an attempt to reinforce parental oversight and local accountability in public school libraries, an effort that now takes on greater importance in the wake of the court’s decision.

The READER Act and Its Purpose

The Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act, passed in 2023 during the 88th Legislative Session, was designed to protect schoolchildren from sexually explicit materials in public school libraries. Authored by State Rep. Jared Patterson (R-Frisco), the law required vendors selling books to public schools to review, rate, and label those materials as either “sexually explicit,” “sexually relevant,” or “no rating.” It also required the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to verify those ratings, publish the lists online, and bar school districts from purchasing books from vendors who did not comply.

Supporters of the measure argued that it was necessary to ensure school libraries were age-appropriate and aligned with community standards. Opponents, including booksellers, publishers, and civil-liberties groups, said the law violated constitutional protections for free speech and imposed vague and burdensome requirements on private vendors. The law was challenged in federal court before it ever took effect, and it has remained tied up in litigation since.

The October 2025 Ruling

Judge Albright’s opinion begins by acknowledging that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating what children can access in public schools and in keeping obscene materials out of the classroom. However, he concluded that the READER Act’s approach “misses the mark.”

According to the ruling, the law compels speech by forcing private vendors to make and adopt statements with which they may not agree. Vendors were required to rate all previously sold and future titles and to accept the TEA’s re-ratings as their own, with no mechanism for appeal. The court held that the government cannot compel private individuals or businesses to speak, nor can it require them to adopt the state’s message as a condition of participating in the market.

Judge Albright also found the law unconstitutionally vague because it offered no clear or objective standard for determining which materials qualified as “sexually explicit.” The required sixteen-step process referenced terms such as “active use,” “directly related to curriculum,” and “patently offensive,” none of which were defined in statute or regulation. The lack of clarity, the court wrote, makes compliance “subjective, confusing, and unworkable,” inviting arbitrary enforcement.

Finally, the ruling held that the law created an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. Once a book was deemed sexually explicit, its sale to schools was prohibited without an opportunity for judicial review. This, the court explained, gives the TEA unchecked authority to suppress materials that could otherwise be protected under the First Amendment.

In issuing the permanent injunction, Judge Albright stated that while protecting students is a legitimate and important goal, “READER’s methods are not the way to further that interest.” His decision represents a final judgment at the district court level, meaning the law cannot currently be enforced, though the state may still appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court.

Implications of the Court’s Decision

The court’s ruling ends, for now, the state’s effort to regulate school library materials through a vendor-based rating system. It reaffirms that even in the pursuit of a valid public purpose, the government cannot compel private speech or establish vague, subjective standards that chill expression. The state retains the authority to restrict obscene material, but it must do so through direct state action, not by conscripting third-party businesses to enforce its preferences.

For lawmakers, the ruling provides an important constitutional boundary. Future legislation must define explicit content with objective, legally defensible standards and must not rely on compelled participation from private entities. While the decision halts READER’s enforcement, it also clarifies the path forward for policymakers seeking to protect students while respecting constitutional rights.

Legislative Context: Senate Bill 13 and Its Relationship to READER

Before the court issued its final ruling, lawmakers had already attempted to address some of the concerns raised in the READER Act litigation through Senate Bill 13 (SB 13), adopted earlier in 2025 as part of the 89th Legislative Session. Authored by State Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney), the bill represented a shift away from state-mandated vendor ratings toward local oversight and parental control.

SB 13 expanded parental access to school library records, established opt-out mechanisms allowing parents to restrict their child’s access to specific materials, and created local school library advisory councils composed primarily of parents. It also mandated public review and board approval of library acquisitions, introduced new transparency requirements, and defined categories such as “indecent” and “profane” content for exclusion from public school libraries.

While SB 13 did not amend the READER Act directly, it functioned as a legislative response to the same policy challenge. By decentralizing oversight to parents and local school boards, it avoided the compelled-speech issues that ultimately invalidated READER. However, as Texas Policy Research noted during the bill’s deliberation, the measure still carries subjective definitions and significant administrative obligations for districts. Without clear statewide standards or enforcement mechanisms, implementation may vary widely across Texas.

Public and Policy Reactions

Reaction to Judge Albright’s decision was mixed but largely pragmatic among those who supported the original purpose of the READER Act. Proponents of stricter library oversight emphasized that while the court struck down the vendor-rating provisions, it left intact the broader concept of library standards and the state’s ability to protect minors from obscene material.

Christin Bentley, a State Republican Executive Committeewoman and Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas’ Legislative Priorities Subcommittee to Stop Sexualizing Texas Kids, expressed confidence that the ruling changes little in practice. On social media, she wrote:

Bentley’s comments reflect continuity with her earlier statements in 2024, when she urged patience and predicted that the courts would ultimately clarify the law’s limits. Her updated remarks underscore the perspective that the ruling affects process more than substance and that the state should pursue an appeal to preserve its ability to regulate school library content.

Broader Policy Considerations

From a constitutional standpoint, the permanent injunction underscores the judiciary’s consistent position that government cannot compel private speech. The ruling draws upon precedents such as Miller v. California and 303 Creative v. Elenis, emphasizing that even regulations designed to serve compelling interests must be narrowly tailored and clearly defined.

For school districts, the ruling leaves SB 13 as the operative framework governing library policies. Districts must now implement the parental access provisions, advisory councils, and catalog transparency requirements established earlier this year. These changes reflect a continued legislative focus on parental involvement but also increase administrative obligations for local boards.

The outcome represents a shift from centralized regulation to localized governance. Whether this approach will produce more effective oversight or greater inconsistency remains to be seen. What is clear is that lawmakers, educators, and parents must continue balancing the dual priorities of protecting children and preserving constitutional freedoms in Texas public schools.

Conclusion

Judge Alan Albright’s October 2025 decision to permanently enjoin enforcement of the READER Act marks a significant setback for those working to ensure age-appropriate materials in Texas public schools. While the court’s ruling restricts how the state may pursue that goal, it does not diminish the importance of protecting children from obscene content or the Legislature’s ongoing responsibility to act.

Texas Policy Research remains committed to supporting policies that both safeguard students and uphold constitutional limits on government authority. Efforts to preserve individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government must coexist with the moral duty to ensure that public schools remain safe and appropriate learning environments. The path forward should focus on crafting laws that are clear, enforceable, and constitutionally sound—laws that empower parents, promote transparency, and defend the integrity of education in Texas.

Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!