Procedural Justice or Structural Change? Legislative Approaches to Eviction and Homelessness in Maryland

Abstract
Background and Purpose:
Eviction is a leading pathway into homelessness and disproportionately impacts renters of color, low-income tenants, and individuals with disabilities. In response to COVID-19 and rising housing instability, the Maryland General Assembly introduced a suite of legislative reforms between 2020 and 2024. This study examines the degree to which recent state-level laws provide procedural justice versus structural solutions to eviction and homelessness. While national attention has been given to eviction moratoria, less is known about how state legislatures translate housing justice frameworks into durable policy protections. This paper fills that gap through a legislative content analysis of key Maryland statutes, assessing their aims, mechanisms, and equity impacts.

Methods:
This study employed a qualitative legislative analysis methodology to examine housing-related legislation enacted in Maryland between 2020 and 2024. Using the Maryland General Assembly database, statutes were identified based on keywords such as “eviction,” “tenant protections,” and “housing stability.” A total of nine legislative texts were selected for in-depth analysis, including the Renters’ Rights and Stabilization Act (HB 693, 2024) and the Access to Counsel in Evictions Act (SB 154, 2021). Documents were coded thematically using qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), focusing on procedural rights, enforcement mechanisms, funding allocations, and targeted populations. Comparative and equity-based assessments were conducted across legislative cycles. Triangulation was achieved using supplemental sources such as fiscal notes, implementation reports, and eviction statistics from state housing and judicial agencies.

Findings:
Three key themes emerged from the legislative analysis: (1) expansion of procedural protections for tenants, (2) institutionalization of the right to legal counsel in eviction proceedings, and (3) persistent equity gaps in policy implementation. HB 693 introduced standardized notice procedures, application fee caps, and just-cause eviction requirements, signaling a move toward greater procedural fairness. SB 154 established legal representation for income-eligible tenants, with early evaluations showing positive impacts on housing stability. However, findings reveal structural gaps: protections for tenants in informal housing arrangements remain weak, enforcement provisions lack specificity, and rollout of legal services is uneven across jurisdictions. Equity assessments showed that Black women remain disproportionately subject to eviction filings, while tenants using housing vouchers continue to face exclusion due to the absence of source-of-income discrimination protections.

Conclusion and Implications:
Maryland’s legislative response reflects a notable shift toward housing justice, yet it stops short of offering comprehensive structural solutions to prevent homelessness. Procedural reforms—while meaningful—must be paired with robust enforcement, wraparound supports, and structural interventions that address root causes of housing instability. For social workers and policymakers, these findings emphasize the need to advocate for integrated housing policy that includes economic supports, legal access, and targeted protections for marginalized populations. Future research should incorporate the perspectives of impacted tenants to assess how these laws function in practice.