In a move that has sparked considerable debate, Texas lawmakers are advancing legislation aimed at addressing the issue of squatting—defined as the illegal occupation of a home. This push follows calls from influential Republican figures, including Governor Greg Abbott, who have dubbed squatting a ‘plague’ affecting communities across the nation.
Senator Paul Bettencourt, the Republican lawmaker from Houston leading the charge for Senate Bill 38, has made statements in support of the proposed changes, asserting the necessity to grapple with what he describes as a growing squatter problem. However, Bettencourt has not provided empirical data to substantiate claims that squatting is a widespread issue in Texas.
The proposed legislation could dramatically influence not only squatters but also bona fide renters who have legally signed leases. If passed, Senate Bill 38 and its companion bill in the House would create a more expedient process for evicting individuals who are not in compliance with their rental agreements.
Critics, including tenant advocates, warn that these bills might erode existing legal protections for renters in a state where such rights are already limited. Nelson Mock, a housing attorney associated with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, characterized the legislation as overly broad, asserting, ‘This is the equivalent of using a shotgun in a schoolyard to kill a mosquito. This is not a squatter bill; this is a bill that undermines tenants’ rights all across the board.’
Current Texas law mandates that both landlords and tenants are afforded a hearing before eviction decisions are made, overseen by a judge who deliberates on contractual violations. Typically, eviction hearings are resolved rather quickly, with a judge often expending just a few minutes on each case. Recently, in Southwest Austin, one judge was reported to have processed a dozen eviction cases in merely half an hour.
Under SB 38, which has already passed the Texas Senate, courts would have the option to implement what is known as a ‘summary disposition.’ This amendment would permit judges to issue eviction orders without holding a hearing if the evidence presented by landlords indicates a clear lease violation, such as non-payment of rent. Renters would be allowed only four days to respond; if they fail to do so, a judge could swiftly authorize their eviction.
Proponents of this summary disposition argue that it will improve judicial efficiency and enable landlords to recover their properties more readily. Corey Rogers, a legal representative from the Texas Apartment Association, testified before senators, asserting that the reforms could provide fairness for property owners who depend on rental income to meet their financial obligations.
Nevertheless, opponents fear that such measures could deprive tenants of their right to defend against eviction. Mark Melton, founder of the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center, emphasized the significance of due process, stating, ‘Due process is a constitutional right. You can’t change that.’
In response, Rep. Jeff Leach, a Republican representing Plano, countered, asserting his own constitutional property rights, which he believes should not be insignificant. While tenants would still hold the right to appeal eviction rulings, critics contend that the rapid nature of the potential evictions under SB 38 could lead to individuals losing their homes in as little as one week—a stark contrast to the current eviction process in Texas, which generally spans several weeks.
Lawmakers cite examples of individuals facing severe difficulties due to squatters. Bettencourt has shared stories, such as that of a homeowner from Mesquite, Texas, who reportedly endured over a year-long struggle to evict a person who occupied her home during her absence. Bettencourt has suggested that there could be as many as 10,000 cases of squatting across the Texan landscape, though he has not clarified the time period associated with that figure.
However, experts studying the phenomenon of squatting in the United States cast doubt on its prevalence. Claire Herbert, a sociology professor at the University of Oregon, noted that comprehensive data on squatting is rare, indicating that such cases appear to be quite rare. Judge KT Musselman from Williamson County noted that over his six-year tenure, he has only seen one or two squatting cases, describing the issue as a ‘total non-issue’ in his jurisdiction.
Judges like Musselman generally encounter vast numbers of eviction cases; Texas courts processed over 300,000 landlord-tenant cases in the previous year, predominantly comprising eviction matters, according to statistics from the Texas Office of Court Administration. Although the term ‘squatting’ is not officially recognized in Texas property law, landlords deal with such situations through ‘forcible entry and detainer’ cases on a civil level, or through criminal trespassing laws.
Some lawmakers’ critiques of SB 38 emphasize that it acts as a deceptive legal framework, rebranded as anti-squatter legislation but which may instead pose risks to renters and individuals who initially had legitimate residency rights. Since 2024, the National Housing Law Project began monitoring similar ‘anti-squatter’ legislation nationwide, identifying measures in states such as Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. According to housing law experts, many of these bills, while ostensibly targeting squatters, also threaten the rights of renters or individuals who had legal grounds to occupy a dwelling.
In addition to addressing eviction procedures, SB 38 introduces further changes to how landlords can notify tenants regarding eviction intentions. Landlords currently have various methods at their disposal to inform tenants, including in-person delivery, mailing, or applying notice upon the tenant’s front door. The proposed legislation aims to enhance landlord flexibility by permitting alternative notifications, such as placing eviction notices anywhere within an apartment.
Supporters argue that increased options will assist landlords; however, opponents express concern regarding potential abuses of this provision. Shoshana Krieger from Building and Strengthening Tenant Action remarked that landlords might technically enter a tenant’s apartment without proper justification, burying the notice under papers to circumvent obligations.
Another modification within SB 38 entails enabling landlords to engage alternative personnel aside from law enforcement for tenant removals post-eviction orders. Presently, landlords rely on constables to enforce eviction writs. Under SB 38, should a constable be unable to comply within five days, landlords could engage any law enforcement officer, including off-duty officers, to carry out evictions.
Supporters claim this provision will facilitate timely evictions, preventing delays. However, detractors warn that the implications of employing unknown personnel for removals could lead to unsettling situations for renters. ‘It could be a person who just looks like someone off the street who has no identification … that’s physically removing you and your family from their home,’ cautioned Ben Martin from Texas Housers, an organization working to educate and protect low-income renters about their housing rights.
SB 38 has already progressed through the Senate and is currently under consideration in a House committee as lawmakers deliberate on the future of eviction protocols in Texas.
image source from：https://www.kut.org/housing/2025-04-25/texas-governor-greg-abbott-anti-squatting-legislation-landlords-tenants-renters-evictions
