2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB4623

HB4623 creates a civil route to hold an independent school district or open-enrollment charter school liable for specified misconduct involving an enrolled student.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to liability of public schools and professional school employees for sexual misconduct involving students.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Little, Dutton, Leo Wilson. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

HB4623 creates a civil route to hold an independent school district or open-enrollment charter school liable for specified misconduct involving an enrolled student.
A school is not automatically liable whenever an employee harms a student.
“Professional school employee” is broader than classroom teacher: it includes administrators, substitutes, counselors, nurses, aides, contract-company teachers, education-program interns, certified school-bus drivers, school governing-board members and specified other certified employees. “Sexual misconduct” includes sexual abuse and conduct described by the 16 Penal Code sections listed in the act, not just physical sexual assault.
The employee whose conduct forms the claim must also be named as a defendant.
A successful claimant receives actual damages capped at $500,000 per claimant under this chapter.
The act does not reopen all older incidents merely because a lawsuit is filed after September 1, 2025.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB4623 creates a civil route to hold an independent school district or open-enrollment charter school liable for specified misconduct involving an enrolled student. It was signed June 20, 2025, and applies only to acts or omissions occurring on or after September 1, 2025.

A school is not automatically liable whenever an employee harms a student. Under the new chapter, the school must have been grossly negligent or reckless, or engaged in intentional misconduct, in hiring, supervising or employing the professional school employee. The employee’s act or omission against the enrolled student must be sexual misconduct or a failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect under Family Code Section 261.101. Ordinary hiring or supervision negligence is not the enacted threshold.

“Professional school employee” is broader than classroom teacher: it includes administrators, substitutes, counselors, nurses, aides, contract-company teachers, education-program interns, certified school-bus drivers, school governing-board members and specified other certified employees. “Sexual misconduct” includes sexual abuse and conduct described by the 16 Penal Code sections listed in the act, not just physical sexual assault. The bill does not create or increase those criminal offenses.

The employee whose conduct forms the claim must also be named as a defendant. The school’s governmental immunity is waived only to the extent of the new chapter’s liability. The employee cannot assert official immunity in an action under that chapter. This is not a wholesale removal of immunity for every school dispute or a statement that every other procedural requirement disappears.

A successful claimant receives actual damages capped at $500,000 per claimant under this chapter. Court costs and reasonable, necessary attorney’s fees are addressed separately: the prevailing party, not only a winning claimant, is entitled to them. Thus, a defendant who prevails can also seek the statutory costs and fees. The law preserves other legal remedies; this cap should not be represented as a universal cap on every possible claim arising from the same events.

The act does not reopen all older incidents merely because a lawsuit is filed after September 1, 2025. Its transition rule is tied to when the act or omission occurred.

What changed along the way?

The introduced version covered a broader range of negligent, reckless, knowing or intentional student injuries and expressly allowed exemplary damages. The House substitute removed that broader injury category and the express exemplary-damages provision, retaining sexual misconduct and failure-to-report claims.

The House’s amendment sequence matters:

Hinojosa’s amendment 1 added negligent hiring, supervision or employment as a condition and proposed a $250,000 limit per act or omission.
Little’s amendment to it changed that amount to $500,000. The House adopted amendment 1 as amended.
Toth’s amendment 3, adding abuse or neglect as a separate liability category, was withdrawn.

The Senate substitute raised the school’s fault threshold to gross negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct; changed the cap from per act to per claimant; removed the express joint-and-several-liability sentence; made fees available to a prevailing party; and changed the transition from when a claim accrues to when the act or omission occurs. The final Paxton floor amendment replaced the body, specifying actual rather than “money” damages and tying the misconduct to “the employee.” Its text became law after House concurrence May 30.

The history, text index, amendment index and Senate packet document those changes.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Students with qualifying claims gain an additional civil remedy and a limited way past school and employee immunity defenses. Schools and employees face potential damages and litigation costs. The higher fault threshold and per-claimant cap limit the new exposure; prevailing-party fees can help a winning party recover costs but also create financial risk for a claimant who loses.

The final fiscal note said the fiscal effect could not be determined because data were lacking. It specifically identified possible school costs for damages, court costs and fees, and uncertain effects on court dockets. That is not a finding of no cost. The bill contains no appropriation.

Review boundary: This describes the new statutory remedy, not a prediction about a particular lawsuit, a filing-deadline calculation or a ruling on how other claims and procedural laws interact.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.