Senator Mike Lee’s push for a porn ban is really two efforts running in parallel: federal legislation that would force adult websites and app stores to verify every user is 18 or older, and pressure on the Department of Justice to prosecute online distributors of obscene material under criminal statutes that have been on the books for more than a century. The strategy got a decisive boost in June 2025, when the Supreme Court upheld a Texas age verification law in a 6–3 decision that cleared the constitutional path for similar rules at the federal level.
The Bills Lee Has Introduced
Three bills in the 119th Congress carry the weight of Lee’s agenda, each attacking the problem from a different angle.
SCREEN Act
The Shielding Children’s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act (S.737) is Lee’s main age verification vehicle. It targets platforms that host significant amounts of sexually explicit content and would impose a federal verification requirement, replacing the current patchwork of state laws with a nationwide standard.1Congress.gov. S.737 – SCREEN Act – 119th Congress (2025-2026)
Interstate Obscenity Definition Act
The IODA (S.1671) writes a definition of obscenity directly into the Communications Act of 1934. Under the bill, obscene content is material that appeals to a prurient interest in sex, depicts actual or simulated sexual acts with the intent to arouse, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The bill also strips out an existing “intent” requirement in current law that only prohibits transmitting obscenity when the sender means to abuse, threaten, or harass someone. Removing that requirement would make it substantially easier for prosecutors to charge commercial distributors.2Lee.senate.gov. Lee Bill Establishes Obscenity Definition Across States
App Store Accountability Act
Introduced in May 2025, this bill shifts responsibility upstream to Apple, Google, and other app store operators. Stores would have to implement privacy-protecting age verification, link minors’ accounts to a parental account so parents can approve downloads, and refrain from selling any age data collected during verification. App stores meeting minimum standards for secure verification and parental controls would get a safe harbor from liability.3Lee.senate.gov. Lee Introduces Bill to Protect Children Online, Hold App Stores Accountable
Obscenity Is Not the Same as Pornography
The legal distinction is the whole ballgame. Most adult content is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has treated only “obscenity” as unprotected speech, and it has said clearly that sex and obscenity are not the same, and that depicting sex in art, literature, or entertainment does not by itself strip constitutional protection.4Library of Congress. Obscenity – Constitution Annotated
Lee’s age verification bills work within that constitutional line: they don’t ban legal adult content, they restrict access by minors. His obscenity enforcement push works on the other side of the line, targeting the narrower category of material that a jury could find legally obscene.
The Miller Test
Before any federal prosecutor can charge a distributor, a jury has to find the material obscene under the three-part test the Supreme Court set in Miller v. California (1973). All three prongs must be satisfied:5Department of Justice. Citizen’s Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Obscenity
- The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex.
- The work depicts sexual conduct in a way an average person would consider patently offensive under community standards.
- The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The Statutes Lee Wants Enforced
The relevant federal criminal provisions sit at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461, 1462, and 1465. Section 1461 declares obscene material nonmailable and bars its delivery by any letter carrier.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1461 – Mailing Obscene or Crime-Inciting Matter Section 1462 extends the prohibition to anyone who imports obscene material into the United States or uses a common carrier or “interactive computer service” to transport it in interstate commerce.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1462 – Importation or Transportation of Obscene Matters Section 1465 specifically criminalizes producing or transporting obscene material for sale or distribution via interstate commerce or interactive computer services.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1465 – Production and Transportation of Obscene Matters for Sale or Distribution
Congress inserted “interactive computer service” into these older statutes to pull the internet within their reach. Lee’s position is that the DOJ already has the tools to prosecute major online distributors and simply hasn’t used them.
The Supreme Court Decision That Changed Everything
On June 27, 2025, in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law (H.B. 1181) requiring websites to verify users are 18 or older if at least one-third of the site’s content meets the state’s definition of “sexual material harmful to minors.” Justice Thomas wrote the 6–3 majority opinion, which held the law triggers intermediate scrutiny because it only “incidentally” burdens the protected speech of adults.9Supreme Court of the United States. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (23-1122)
Under that standard, the law survives if it advances an important governmental interest unrelated to suppressing speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary. The Court found protecting children from sexual content qualifies as important, the law does not target the message, and the verification requirement is an acceptable means. The Court also rejected the argument that less restrictive alternatives doomed the law.
More than 20 states had similar age verification laws in place at the time of the decision, and the ruling removed the primary constitutional objection to them. It also gives Lee a clear blueprint for federal legislation.
What Age Verification Would Look Like
Any covered platform would have to confirm each visitor’s age before granting access. At the state level, the existing laws typically kick in when more than one-third of a site’s content qualifies as sexually explicit material harmful to minors.
Verification methods fall into two general categories. The first is government-issued ID, where a user uploads or scans a driver’s license or similar document. The second is a third-party verification service that cross-references personal data against public records, credit databases, or other identity sources to confirm age without the website itself handling the ID. Checkbox prompts or self-reported birthdays would not satisfy any of the current proposals.
The Penalties on the Table
Federal obscenity convictions carry real prison time. Under §§ 1461 and 1462, a first conviction for mailing or transporting obscene material can bring a fine, up to five years in federal prison, or both, with a maximum of ten years for a second or subsequent offense.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1462 – Importation or Transportation of Obscene Matters Section 1465 carries a maximum of five years per offense.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1465 – Production and Transportation of Obscene Matters for Sale or Distribution Those are the tools Lee wants the DOJ to use.
On the civil side, several state age verification laws include a private right of action that lets parents sue websites that allow minors access. The Texas law upheld in Paxton imposes penalties of $10,000 per day for failing to implement age verification and $250,000 for each instance of a minor accessing sexual material harmful to minors.10Freedom Forum. SCOTUS Upholds Age Verification Law: First Amendment Analysis Other states have set different amounts. Whether Lee’s SCREEN Act will include a similar private right of action is one of the open questions as the bill moves through committee.
Privacy Concerns and Industry Response
The strongest criticism of mandatory age verification has little to do with defending adult content. Requiring users to hand over government IDs or biometric data to access legal websites creates sensitive databases that link real identities to specific browsing habits. Age verification providers have already suffered high-profile breaches. Children, ironically, can be particularly vulnerable to identity theft from these systems.
Lee’s App Store Accountability Act tries to address this by prohibiting the sale of age-related data and requiring “privacy-protecting” verification methods.3Lee.senate.gov. Lee Introduces Bill to Protect Children Online, Hold App Stores Accountable Whether any technical approach can truly verify age without verifying identity remains an open question.
Major adult platforms have mostly refused to comply with state laws, choosing to block access entirely in states that enact them. Pornhub has blocked users in more than 20 states as of 2025. The company’s own data shows traffic dropped roughly 80 percent in Louisiana after that state’s law took effect, though the company argues users migrated to non-compliant sites, pirate platforms, and services that don’t ask for verification. VPN usage spikes in states after verification laws take effect, as users route their traffic through servers elsewhere.
Critics point to that pattern as evidence the laws push users toward less regulated corners of the internet without meaningfully reducing access. Supporters counter that imperfect enforcement is not a reason to abandon the effort, and that a federal standard, which is what Lee is pursuing, would eliminate the option of simply reaching content from another state’s server.