Maryland lawmakers are renewing a push to streamline the court process for dealing with squatters, including a bill that seeks to accelerate the timeline for removing unauthorized residential tenants.

Should a property be listed for sale, the bill would require the subject of a squatting complaint to appear in court within five days of the filing instead of 10 days and condense the amount of time to hold an appeal hearing from 15 days to three, according to a nonpartisan legislative analysis. The bill requires tenants be notified of a complaint only by a door posting and not also by mail.

It’s the fourth year a state lawmaker has proposed a bill aimed at expediting a squatting complaint, and this year’s proposal lacks a sponsor in the Senate. But tenants rights activists and housing advocates are eyeing the proposal as a potential threat, concerned it would endanger low-income renters and make more people susceptible to due process violations.

“We’re taking it seriously because we see how our clients are suffering from this [being wrongfully accused of squatting],” said Matt Hill, managing attorney at the Public Justice Center, a nonprofit law group that represents low-income people. He called the proposal problematic and questioned its constitutionality.

Unauthorized tenants have drawn the ire of housing providers over the last few years as home costs have grown higher. An illegal occupant can take weeks to remove from a property, which can extend the construction, moving or leasing periods and lead to financial losses.

During testimony for a similar proposal last year, housing providers, including the Maryland Association of REALTORS, said it was “imperative” to speed up court timelines to reduce monetary damage to property owners and allow law enforcement to hold people accountable more quickly.

President Donald Trump has weighed in, saying as part of a wide-ranging executive order in July 2025 that the federal government would prioritize grant funding for states and municipalities that enforce prohibitions on “urban squatting.”

Part of the squatting problem stems from court backlogs that continue to recover from COVID-19-era shutdowns that created delays in hearing schedules and evictions. A 2025 bill passed by Maryland lawmakers seeks to speed up the legal process by requiring judges to hold hearings within 10 business days after someone files a complaint in court.

Another complicating factor centers on the rise of “scamlords,” scammers who lure low-income and vulnerable tenants into artificial leases inside properties they don’t own. The scammers often use fake social media profiles, burner phones and payment services such as Cash App that make wire transfers nearly impossible to rescind.

For that reason, Baltimore Sheriff Sam Cogen said, these cases are difficult to investigate and often “not as clear” as some allege.

He said his office needs more time to assess whether the 2025 law, which requires a hearing within 10 business days, is sufficient or needs tweaking. The department, he said, is seeing an uptick in wrongful detainer filings.

In a statement, Maryland Judiciary spokesperson Nick Cavey said the court system “has no position” on the proposal. There are no reports of the courts experiencing difficulty setting cases within the 10-day time frame, he added.

Hill, from the Public Justice Center, said “going the squatter route” has become a more common tactic for landlords as Maryland adds renter protections.

For example, in state jurisdictions that require rental licenses, unlicensed landlords cannot collect rent or file failure-to-pay eviction cases. But unlicensed landlords, Hill noted, are not precluded from filing wrongful detainer cases, which claim that someone in a property is trespassing.

Such was the case with Madison Pleas, a Baltimore tenant who rented from a friend in East Baltimore. The house had its kinks, Pleas recalled, but she adjusted to living there with her newborn daughter and could manage the rent.

Then the house foreclosed in 2024, Pleas said, and a new owner acquired it and offered her “cash for keys” to move out. Pleas turned it down, so the new owner filed a wrongful detainer suit, accusing her of being a squatter.

A public health researcher, Pleas said she considered her options and went with the “lesser of two evils.” She negotiated with the owner to drop the case in exchange for an expedited move-out.

Katie Davis, director of the Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland, said in 2025 testimony in the Maryland legislature that tenants frequently seek legal services for situations involving for-sale houses that new landlords want to flip and clear quickly.

Though the organization sympathizes with the squatter dilemma, Davis urged state lawmakers to view bills seeking to quicken the timeline with caution.

“We must be careful about the unintended consequences of legislation that could open the door to unconstitutional practices,” Davis said. “Families have a due process right to protect their home and their possessions.”

Typically, Davis added, PBRC’s clients have leases — but need help proving it.

In Felicia Lemon’s case, the longtime South Baltimore resident had lived in the same rental home in Cherry Hill for eight years on an annual lease. Lemon lives with her 12-year-old daughter and two adult children, who also help pay the rent.

Lemon’s property owner sold the house last year, and she almost immediately faced a wrongful detainer action by the new owner, alleging they were squatting. In November, Lemon won in court.

Now her landlord is trying another legal option to oust her. Afraid of the repercussions, Lemon is looking for a new home that can accommodate her family and their budget. It hasn’t been easy.

“I haven’t done anything wrong,” Lemon said. “I’m not sitting here ‘squatting.’ They’re making you look like you’re doing a crime when you’re not trying to.”

Other bills to be considered by state lawmakers this year include a measure that would prohibit fraudulent sales and leasing by scammers and another that would restrict people from creating or helping to create “counterfeit” leases or rental agreements.