Patrick Targets Texas Schools Over SB 13 Library Compliance

Estimated Time to Read: 11 minutes

Texas lawmakers may revisit the issue of sexually explicit and inappropriate materials in public school libraries when the 90th Texas Legislature convenes in January.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) announced last week that he intends to pursue additional legislation targeting school districts he says are failing to comply with Senate Bill 13 (SB 13), the school library law passed by lawmakers in the 89th Legislative Session (2025). Patrick suggested one potential consequence could be lowering a noncompliant school district's A-F accountability rating by an entire letter grade.

"It's the law, and we expect you to follow the law," Patrick said. "So we're coming for the books."

Patrick's announcement is significant not simply because lawmakers could again debate school library content, but because it raises a question that surrounded SB 13 throughout the legislative process: What happens when a school district does not follow the law?

Texas Policy Research (TPR) raised that concern when lawmakers were debating SB 13. While supporting the legislation's efforts to strengthen parental authority and transparency, TPR ultimately recommended that lawmakers amend the legislation, warning that its reliance on subjective standards and decentralized enforcement could produce inconsistent results.

Patrick's latest proposal appears intended to address at least part of that enforcement problem. Whether tying library compliance to Texas school accountability ratings is the appropriate solution presents a separate policy question.

Patrick Says Texas School Districts Are Not Following SB 13

Patrick was joined at Wednesday's press conference by activist Bonnie Wallace, who has documented books containing graphic sexual material that remain available in Texas public school libraries. Patrick claimed that roughly 80 percent of Texas school districts have failed to take sufficient action under SB 13 and called on districts to remove prohibited materials voluntarily before lawmakers intervene again.

The Lieutenant Governor displayed several books during the press conference that he characterized as sexually explicit, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate for students. Patrick argued that the debate should not be characterized as a traditional "book ban" because the books remain available for private purchase. His argument instead focused on whether taxpayer-funded public schools should provide them to students.

The distinction is important because SB 13 regulates materials available through government-operated public school libraries. It does not prohibit Texans from privately purchasing, possessing, publishing, or distributing the books. Patrick said lawmakers could establish consequences for districts that refuse to comply, specifically floating legislation that would lower a school district's accountability rating by one letter grade if prohibited materials remain available.

Such a change would significantly raise the stakes surrounding school library compliance because Texas A-F accountability ratings are designed primarily to measure academic performance and can carry substantial consequences for persistently low-performing districts.

What Texas Senate Bill 13 Requires

Senate Bill 13 (SB 13), authored by State Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney), took effect following the 89th Legislative Session. The law expanded Texas's existing regulation of public school library materials while placing greater responsibility on locally elected school boards and parents. Among other changes, SB 13 defines "indecent content" as material portraying sexual or excretory organs or activities in a patently offensive manner and defines "profane content" as grossly offensive language considered a public nuisance.

School library collection policies must prohibit harmful material, materials rated sexually explicit by vendors, material deemed pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable, material containing indecent or profane content, and materials directing students to websites containing prohibited content. The law simultaneously provides that material cannot be removed solely because of the ideas it contains or the personal background of its author or characters. SB 13 also significantly expanded parental rights. Districts must allow parents to review school library catalogs and identify materials their children may not check out. Parents must also receive access through applicable online systems to records showing library materials their children have obtained. School boards, meanwhile, must adopt acquisition policies and generally approve proposed library materials following a period of public review.

The law also created a formal challenge process. Parents, district employees, and district residents may challenge library materials, and students are prohibited from accessing a challenged material while the district considers the challenge. The Texas State Library and Archives Commission subsequently revised the state's mandatory school library collection development standards, with those revisions having taken effect earlier this year.

SB 13's Enforcement Problem Was Foreseeable

Patrick's frustration with implementation highlights a weakness TPR identified while SB 13 was still moving through the Legislature.

TPR supported the bill's expansion of parental access, library transparency, and mechanisms allowing parents and residents to challenge inappropriate materials. At the same time, TPR recommended lawmakers vote against SB 13 unless it was amended because the legislation combined vague content definitions with significant procedural requirements while providing limited state-level enforcement mechanisms. TPR specifically warned that without clearer objective standards and meaningful enforcement tools, "districts may continue to avoid accountability." TPR recommended that lawmakers consider constitutionally grounded definitions alongside state-level enforcement mechanisms such as civil penalties or injunctive relief.

That concern was not limited to school libraries. During the same legislative session, TPR supported House Bill 3225 (HB 3225), authored by State Rep. Daniel Alders (R-Tyler), which addressed minors' access to sexually explicit materials in municipal public libraries.

HB 3225 took a notably different approach to enforcement. The legislation would have prohibited municipal libraries from maintaining sexually explicit materials in sections accessible to minors while generally requiring parental consent and age verification before a minor could access sexually explicit material elsewhere in a library's collection. More importantly, the bill paired those requirements with direct consequences for noncompliance. Municipal libraries could have lost eligibility for certain state library grants, and violations that were not corrected within the prescribed period could have resulted in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. The Attorney General would also have been authorized to seek temporary or permanent injunctive relief.

TPR supported HB 3225 as it moved through the Legislature. The bill passed the House and was subsequently approved by the Senate State Affairs Committee on an 8-1 vote. It was placed on the Senate Intent Calendar in the closing days of the 2025 legislative session but never received consideration by the full Senate.

Although HB 3225 addressed municipal public libraries rather than public school libraries, its enforcement structure provides a useful comparison as lawmakers consider Patrick's proposal. Instead of altering a separate performance-rating system to punish noncompliance, HB 3225 attached consequences directly to violations of the underlying law.

That distinction matters now. If Patrick's contention is correct that widespread noncompliance persists despite SB 13, the problem may not necessarily be that Texas lacks another substantive prohibition. It may be that the existing law does not provide a sufficiently clear and effective mechanism for enforcing the prohibitions already enacted.

Should SB 13 Compliance Affect Texas A-F Ratings?

Patrick's suggestion that noncompliant districts lose an entire letter grade would provide a powerful enforcement mechanism, but it would also represent a significant expansion of what Texas's A-F accountability system measures.

The accountability system primarily communicates information about academic performance. Adding statutory compliance penalties could blur the distinction between how effectively students are learning and whether a district has complied with an unrelated regulatory requirement. That does not mean violations of SB 13 should carry no consequences.

If the Legislature determines that school districts are knowingly violating state law, lawmakers have a legitimate interest in establishing an enforceable remedy. But that remedy should be directly connected to the violation rather than potentially distorting an accountability rating that parents and taxpayers rely upon to understand academic performance.

A district could theoretically perform well academically while violating SB 13. Conversely, a district already struggling academically could receive an even lower rating for a regulatory violation unrelated to student achievement. Neither scenario necessarily gives parents a clearer picture of educational outcomes.

The policy debate during the 90th Legislature should therefore focus not merely on whether there should be consequences, but on what enforcement mechanism is best suited to the violation.

Texas School Library Policy Still Faces Constitutional Limits

Lawmakers will also have to contend with the constitutional issues surrounding government regulation of library materials. Those concerns are not theoretical.

In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Alan Albright permanently enjoined major portions of House Bill 900, the 2023 READER Act. The court concluded that its vendor-rating requirements violated the First Amendment, including by compelling private vendors to adopt government-required classifications and relying on insufficiently clear standards.

That decision does not mean Texas is powerless to regulate its own public school libraries. Rather, it reinforces the need for lawmakers to distinguish between government control over taxpayer-funded collections and restrictions or compelled speech imposed on private actors.

TPR's analysis of the READER Act ruling noted that the constitutional boundary allows government institutions substantial authority over their own library collections while requiring policymakers to avoid compelled private speech and rely upon sufficiently objective standards. Any new SB 13 enforcement legislation should be drafted with those lessons in mind.

The state's legitimate interest in preventing children from accessing obscene or developmentally inappropriate material does not eliminate the need for precision. In fact, stronger enforcement makes precise statutory definitions even more important because ambiguity becomes more consequential as penalties increase.

That principle also aligns with the Texas Liberty Compact, Texas Policy Research's governing framework for the 90th Legislature. Its call to Protect Free Speech and Digital Expression recognizes that government has legitimate authority in certain areas where its interests intersect with speech, but insists that regulation remain narrowly tailored and consistent with constitutional protections.

School libraries present precisely that kind of challenge. Texas has considerable authority to determine what materials its taxpayer-funded schools acquire and make available to students, particularly when protecting minors and preserving parental authority. But legislation should distinguish that authority from broader restrictions on protected expression or requirements imposed on private actors.

The Legislature therefore should not have to choose between meaningful enforcement and constitutional restraint. Clear definitions, objective standards, and remedies directed specifically at violations of state law can advance both.

Parental Rights Should Remain Central to Texas Library Policy

One of SB 13's strongest features is its recognition that parents should remain the primary decision-makers regarding what their children access. The law expressly requires collection development policies to recognize parents as the primary decision-makers concerning student access to library materials.

That principle provides a useful guide for whatever lawmakers consider next.

Transparency gives parents information. Access to checkout records gives parents oversight. The ability to restrict their own child's access gives parents control. Public review and challenges provide parents and taxpayers a mechanism for holding government institutions accountable.

Those tools reinforce parental responsibility without assuming every dispute requires a new layer of centralized state bureaucracy.

At the same time, parental control over an individual child does not resolve the separate question of what a taxpayer-funded school library may lawfully make available in the first place. If the Legislature establishes statewide standards for public institutions, those standards must mean something in practice.

The 90th Legislature Could Revisit School Library Enforcement

Patrick's announcement makes another debate over Texas school library policy increasingly likely when lawmakers return to Austin in January 2027.

The central question should be narrower than whether sexually explicit material belongs in school libraries. Texas lawmakers have already answered that question through multiple legislative efforts.

The more difficult issue is how to translate that policy into an enforcement structure that is clear, constitutional, and effective.

SB 13 strengthened parental rights, increased transparency, established formal challenge procedures, and placed responsibility for library acquisitions more directly on locally elected school boards. But the current controversy suggests those procedures alone may not guarantee compliance.

Patrick's proposed accountability penalty would unquestionably give the law more teeth. Whether an academic accountability rating is the proper place to impose that consequence deserves careful scrutiny.

The Texas Liberty Compact's call to Restore Legislative Supremacy is relevant here as well. Laws enacted by the Legislature should not become optional because regulated government entities disagree with them or because lawmakers failed to provide an effective means of enforcement. At the same time, legislative supremacy is best preserved through clear statutes and defined consequences, not by stretching unrelated regulatory systems beyond their intended purposes.

A better approach may be to strengthen direct enforcement of SB 13 itself, clarify ambiguous statutory standards, establish objective criteria for determining violations, and provide remedies specifically tailored to districts that knowingly refuse to comply.

Protecting children from inappropriate material and respecting constitutional limits are not mutually exclusive goals. Texas lawmakers should expect school districts to follow the laws they enact. The challenge for the 90th Legislature will be ensuring those laws are precise enough to understand, strong enough to enforce, and carefully constructed enough to withstand judicial review.

---