Texas's new legislative measure, Senate Bill 38, is now active, significantly altering the eviction landscape for properties occupied without legal authorization. This statute, which became effective January 1, aims to accelerate the removal process for individuals deemed "squatters," a term often applied to those without a lease or legal right to inhabit a property. Authored by Houston State Senator Paul Bettencourt, the law is framed as a critical response to what proponents describe as a growing issue of illegal property occupation across the state. Senator Bettencourt, a Republican representing Houston, asserts that SB 38 will drastically reduce the time required to remove unauthorized occupants, shifting the timeline from potentially months to mere days. He characterized the new procedure as a "rocket docket," designed to streamline the legal process for removing individuals who lack a legitimate claim to residency. The legislative push for SB 38 reportedly followed interim hearings prompted by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, which uncovered hundreds, if not thousands, of such cases statewide, illustrating the perceived urgency of the reform. The measure specifically targets civil court proceedings. This civil court reform complements Senate Bill 1333, an earlier statute enacted in September, which bolstered criminal prosecution avenues for unauthorized property occupation. Bettencourt emphasized that these legislative actions represent "commonsense reforms" intended to protect property owners and prevent individuals from residing in homes without lawful tenure or a lease agreement. Conversely, housing advocacy organizations express considerable apprehension regarding SB 38's broader implications for tenant protections in Texas. Ben Martin, Deputy Director of Texas Housers, posits that the legislation primarily weakens existing, often fragile, tenant rights rather than solely targeting clear-cut cases of illegal occupation. Martin argues that instead of addressing underlying housing instability factors, lawmakers opted for a measure that renders the eviction process less favorable and more intricate for legitimate renters. A significant concern raised by advocates centers on SB 38's purported weakening and ambiguity of requirements for landlords to issue a notice to vacate. This alteration could potentially reduce the clarity and duration tenants have to rectify lease violations or prepare for eviction proceedings. Furthermore, the law now permits off-duty police officers to execute eviction orders, a responsibility previously confined to constables. This change could introduce complexities regarding accountability and the scope of authority for law enforcement personnel in civil matters. The accelerated timeline is particularly contentious. Martin highlights that individuals identified as "trespassers" or "squatters"—those without a lease or legitimate right to the property—could face an eviction hearing, from filing to judgment, within as little as five days, potentially bypassing the need for a formal trial. This expedited process raises questions about due process, especially for individuals who might genuinely believe they have a right to residency or who are mistakenly categorized as squatters rather than tenants with lease disputes. The swift nature of these proceedings may limit opportunities for individuals to present their case or seek legal counsel, potentially impacting those who are merely behind on rent but are not "squatters" in the traditional sense. The legal distinction between a "tenant" with a lease violation and an "unauthorized occupant" or "squatter" is crucial, and the application of this law could blur those lines in practice. The implementation of SB 38 therefore establishes a new legal framework in Texas designed to expedite the removal of unauthorized occupants. However, it simultaneously generates a robust debate concerning the balance between property owners' rights and the constitutional protections and due process considerations afforded to all individuals occupying residential property, whether legally or not. Its practical application will likely necessitate careful judicial scrutiny to differentiate between true illegal occupations and legitimate tenant disputes.