Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Block/Dow
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 03/03/2025
SHORT TITLE No Sexually Explicit Material in Schools
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 558
ANALYST Chilton
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
PED
No fiscal
impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
No fiscal
impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Nonrecurring General Fund
NMCD
No fiscal
impact
No fiscal
impact
No fiscal
impact
No fiscal
impact
Recurring General Fund
Counties
No fiscal
impact
No fiscal
impact
No fiscal
impact
No fiscal
impact
Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Regional Educational Cooperative (RECA) Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG)
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Public Education Department (PED) Albuquerque Public Schools (APS)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 558
House Bill 558 enacts a new section of the Public School Code (Section 22 NMSA 1978),
seeking to protect children from sexually explicit material that is not part of “sexual education
and biology material,” defined as material meeting Public Education Department (PED)-
approved academic content and appropriate for age. “Sexually explicit information”, on the other
hand, is defined as other sexual and biological information that would not be considered suitable
for broadcast on radio or television, which might include nudity, sexual intercourse or related
acts, sexual exploitation or rape.
Sexually explicit information would be prohibited in schools and is not to be made available by a
school employee, volunteer, or contractor, on penalty of termination or discharge. PED is House Bill 558 – Page 2
required to seek a fine from school districts or charter schools that fail to comply with this law.
Section 2 of the bill modifies Section 30-37-5 NMSA 1978, which deals with defenses and
exclusions from prosecution for making sexually oriented material available to minors. Defenses
include the alleged perpetrator having been presented with a document stating (truly or falsely)
that a child was over 18 years of age, if a parent/guardian is present and waives provisions of the
bill, or where the “person” is a bona fide museum or public library or an employee of one of
those or a retail outlet serving the educational purposes of a museum or library.
The effective date of this bill is July 1, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There is no appropriation in House Bill 558. PED may incur some costs in writing and
promulgating regulations. The bill does not create a new crime or penalty and therefore, this
analysis assumes, would have no fiscal impact to the state’s criminal justice system.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
House Bill 558 would bar the presentation of sexually explicit material to school children less
than 18 years of age, broadly and explicitly defining “sexually explicit material,” but excluding
medically and scientifically accurate information used for the purposes of sexual education or
study of science.
NMAG comments that:
The bill would ban non-obscene material from public school curricula, which would raise
free speech concerns under the First Amendment. See Roth v. United States, 354 U.S.
476, 487 (1957) (“[S]ex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material
which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. The portrayal of sex, e.g.,
in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the
constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press.”). In Bd. of Educ., Island Trees
Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), a plurality of the Supreme
Court recognized that the First Amendment imposes some limits on public schools to
remove materials from school libraries. Although Pico has not been overturned, it was a
fractured decision, and it is unclear how the current Court would construe it.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The Administrative Office of the District Attorneys points out that:
39-37-5 EXCLUSIONS—DEFENSES states “no person shall be guilty of violating the
provisions of …..” House Bill 558 is not a criminal statue but a civil enforcement statue
with penalties against employment and fines. There is a different burden of proof
standard for civil enforcement vs criminal enforcement.
LAC/hj/SL2