Impact Cases

On February 23, 2026, Maryland Legal Aid (MLA) filed an amicus brief in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in National Council of Nonprofits v. McMahon. An amicus brief, also known as a “friend of the court” brief, is filed by people or organizations that are not parties in the case but have important experience or information to share with the Court.

MLA filed the brief on behalf of 92 civil legal services organizations from across the country. The brief challenged a new U.S. Department of Education rule that would have changed how the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, known as PSLF, was carried out. PSLF was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage people to work in public service. Under the program, borrowers who work full time in qualifying public service jobs for ten years and make the required student loan payments can have the remaining balance of their federal student loans forgiven.

The Department of Education’s new rule would have allowed the Secretary of Education to disqualify certain public service employers from PSLF if the Secretary found that the employer had a “substantial illegal purpose.” That term was not clearly defined and was not part of the law Congress created. MLA and its partners argued that this vague standard would create uncertainty for nonprofit legal aid organizations and their employees, even though Congress had already set clear rules for who qualifies for PSLF.

For legal aid organizations, that uncertainty could have had serious consequences. Legal aid attorneys often carry significant student loan debt while earning far less than they could in private practice. Many choose to work in public service because PSLF makes that career path financially possible. If legal aid organizations could suddenly lose PSLF eligibility, fewer attorneys may be able to afford to enter or remain in legal aid work.

The brief explained that weakening PSLF would not only harm legal aid attorneys. It would also harm the people and communities they serve. Civil legal aid attorneys help people facing eviction, domestic violence, loss of public benefits, consumer debt, employment barriers, veterans’ and disability benefits issues, elder abuse, and other life-changing legal problems. At a time when many communities already face attorney shortages, making PSLF less reliable would reduce access to legal help for people who cannot afford a lawyer.

Kevonne Small, Chief Legal Director at Maryland Legal Aid, said: “Congress made a clear promise to public servants. If you commit to serving your community for ten years and make your payments, your remaining federal student loan debt will be forgiven. This new rule undermines that promise by creating uncertainty about who qualifies. For legal aid organizations, that instability threatens our ability to recruit and retain the attorneys our communities depend on.”

On June 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun issued a decision in National Council of Nonprofits et al. v. McMahon et al. and the related case Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Department of Education et al. The Court ruled that the Department’s final rule was unlawful. Judge Joun found that the rule was contrary to law, exceeded the Department’s authority, was arbitrary and capricious, and violated the First Amendment. The Court vacated the rule, meaning it was set aside in full.

The Court’s decision protected PSLF for public servants, including civil legal aid attorneys across the country. The decision also preserved an important tool that helps nonprofit legal aid organizations recruit and retain attorneys who serve low-income communities.

In response to the decision, Kevonne Small said: “This decision reaffirms a fundamental principle: federal agencies cannot simply rewrite laws enacted by Congress. For many legal aid attorneys, Public Service Loan Forgiveness makes a career in public service financially possible. Today’s ruling protects not only those dedicated professionals, but also the countless individuals and families who depend on civil legal aid for help.”

Through its leadership in filing the national amicus brief, MLA helped bring the concerns of civil legal services organizations to the Court. The outcome preserved a mission-critical program for public servants and helped protect access to justice for people and families who rely on legal aid.

For a copy of the amicus brief, please click here.

On August 12, 2025, Maryland Legal Aid (MLA) filed a lawsuit on behalf of 17 tenants living at the Sharp Leadenhall Apartments in Baltimore City. The lawsuit was brought under Maryland's Tenant Safety Act of 2024, a law that allows multiple tenants experiencing similar dangerous housing conditions to join together in a single rent escrow case. It is one of the first lawsuits filed under the new law.

According to the complaint, the tenants have endured widespread unsafe and unhealthy conditions throughout the 192-unit apartment complex for years. The lawsuit alleges that the landlord and property management company failed to address serious maintenance and safety concerns despite repeated complaints from residents and the Historic Sharp Leadenhall Tenant Council.

The complaint describes numerous hazardous conditions affecting tenants throughout the property, including rodent and insect infestations, mold, water leaks, damaged windows and doors, faulty electrical outlets, structural deterioration, and inadequate security. The lawsuit also alleges that trash was not removed regularly, creating unsanitary conditions that contributed to pest infestations, and that maintenance staff repeatedly failed to make repairs after receiving notice from tenants.

In addition to unsafe housing conditions, the lawsuit alleges that the landlord failed to provide services and amenities promised in tenants' leases. According to the complaint, residents had limited access to laundry facilities, were unable to use the community room because it had fallen into disrepair, and experienced poor maintenance of the property's common areas and grounds.

The lawsuit also alleges that the landlord was operating portions of the property without valid Baltimore City rental licenses. Under Baltimore City law, landlords generally may not collect rent for rental properties that are not properly licensed. Through the lawsuit, the tenants are asking the court to order repairs, require advance notice before maintenance staff enter residents' homes, appoint a special administrator if necessary, reduce rent while dangerous conditions remain, and award attorneys' fees as provided under Maryland law.

Zafar Shah, Advocacy Director for the Human Right to Housing at Maryland Legal Aid, said: "They are suing for accountability, not for a payday. This is not about money damages. It's about accountability."

This case reflects Maryland Legal Aid's continued commitment to ensuring that every Marylander has access to safe, habitable housing. By representing tenants collectively under the Tenant Safety Act, MLA is working to hold landlords accountable for dangerous living conditions, strengthen enforcement of Maryland's tenant protection laws, and help ensure that families can live in safe and dignified homes.

Read the complaint here.

On August 25, 2023, Maryland Legal Aid (MLA), along with a coalition of nonprofit legal and advocacy organizations across the state, filed an amicus brief, also known as a “friend of the court” brief, in the Supreme Court of Maryland. The brief supports low-income tenants who could face eviction because of unfair lease terms. The case is Westminster Management, LLC v. Tenae Smith.

The case focuses on an important question: What counts as “rent”? Westminster argues that landlords should be able to define “rent” broadly in a lease to include extra charges, such as the landlord’s costs related to eviction. Under that definition, even tenants who have paid their monthly rent could still be taken to eviction court for other fees and charges. This could put tenants at risk of losing their homes, even when they are up to date on rent.

MLA and its partners argue that “rent” should mean what courts have already recognized it to mean: the regular payment a tenant makes to live in the home. Landlords should not be allowed to expand the meaning of rent to include other costs, such as liability insurance, trash removal, routine pest control, or eviction-related expenses.

This issue is especially important for low-income tenants. Because affordable housing is in short supply, many tenants have little or no power to negotiate the terms of their leases. They may feel forced to accept unfair lease language just to secure a place to live. MLA and its partners urged the Supreme Court of Maryland to protect tenants from lease provisions that could make it easier for landlords to evict them over fees that are not truly rent.

The brief also explains the real-life consequences of allowing landlords to treat extra charges as rent. Eviction can lead to homelessness, housing instability, health problems, job loss, and custody challenges. MLA and its partners see these consequences every day in their work with low-income Marylanders and brought these concerns to the Court’s attention.

Lee Ogburn, MLA’s Advocacy Director for Impact and Appellate Litigation, said: “Rent means rent, plain and simple. MLA represents thousands of low-income clients who have no power to negotiate different definitions that landlords illegally include in leases to make eviction easier. This brief, backed by a powerful coalition of nonprofit organizations, gives voice to our clients. We hope the Supreme Court hears them.”

For a copy of the amicus brief, please click here.

*The Coalition is made up of the following nonprofits and attorneys across Maryland: Maryland Legal Aid, The Pro Bono Resource Center, Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service, Civil Justice, Inc., Economic Action Maryland, The Homeless Persons Representation Project, Inc., and Daniel L. Rosenberg.

Press Coverage

Law360: ‘Rent’ Definition Row Attracts Tenant Advocates, Trade Groups (PDF)

 In August 2023, Maryland Legal Aid (MLA) filed a lawsuit in Baltimore City Circuit Court on behalf of several low-income senior tenants, many of whom are disabled and one of whom is a veteran. The tenants live in subsidized rental properties in Baltimore City owned and/or managed by Reginald and Marguerite Daniels Housing for the Elderly, Bellevue-Manchester Limited Partnership, and The Towner Management Company, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that the landlords and property managers did not have valid rental licenses for the properties, as required by Baltimore City law. Even though the properties were allegedly unlicensed, the Defendants continued to collect rent from tenants. MLA argues that landlords should not be allowed to collect rent from residents when they have failed to follow the law requiring rental properties to be properly licensed.

The complaint also describes serious safety and housing problems in the properties. Tenants reported rodent infestations, water damage, dry-rotted bathrooms, mold, broken appliances, peeling paint, and dangerous fire hazards. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants knew about these unsafe and unhealthy conditions but failed to make the necessary repairs.

For the senior residents, these conditions have caused significant harm. Many of the tenants have experienced depression, anxiety, panic attacks, loss of appetite, medical expenses, fear of being inside their homes, and high blood pressure. For some residents, including a tenant with cancer, the poor living conditions have made existing health problems worse and caused additional emotional distress.

The lawsuit also claims that the Defendants violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the Maryland Fair Debt Collection Act by seeking and collecting rent they were not legally entitled to collect because the properties were unlicensed.

Kyle Coleman, an attorney in Maryland Legal Aid’s Baltimore City office, said: “Our clients look forward to holding these landlords accountable for ignoring the local rental license law and for not providing the decent and safe housing every Baltimore resident is entitled to.”

The tenants in this case have limited incomes and few housing options. Because safe, affordable, and properly licensed housing is difficult to find, they have been forced to remain in unsafe conditions. Through this lawsuit, MLA is working to hold the landlords and property managers accountable and to protect the tenants’ right to safe and lawful housing.

Read the Complaint here.

On Monday, August 21, 2023, Maryland Legal Aid (“MLA”) joined the Texas Advocacy Project (“TAP”) and a coalition of dedicated non-profit organizations* across the nation in proudly filing an amicus brief in US v. Rahimi to ensure the safety and protection of domestic violence survivors through appropriate firearm regulations.

Their brief, submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, comes in response to the Fifth Circuit’s recent ruling that has potential life-threatening implications for survivors of domestic violence, their families, and the broader community.

The amici curiae, or “friends of the court,” coalition comprises esteemed organizations like TAP that have made it their mission to provide vital civil legal services and advocacy to survivors of domestic violence.

Collectively, these organizations work tirelessly to increase access to justice, especially for underrepresented and underserved communities. Through direct representation of survivors and support for those representing them, the amicus seeks to create a world where every survivor can live free from abuse.

The amicus brief addresses the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, which misapplied the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. Contrary to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Section 922(g)(8) does not impose a broad prohibition on firearm possession or carry; rather, it focuses on preventing individuals who have committed or threatened family violence from accessing firearms during the period they are under a protective order.

The brief also underscores the evolution of domestic violence over the centuries, emphasizing how the nature of these cases has transformed from 1791 to the present day.

The amicus asserts that the Fifth Circuit’s misconceptions about domestic violence protective orders (“DVPOs”) led to an invalidation of Section 922(g)(8) based on outdated anecdotes and hypothetical concerns. As a direct consequence of this ruling, the safety of domestic partners, children, first responders, bystanders, and the public is jeopardized, placing them at risk of serious or even fatal harm.

The amici curiae firmly believe that safeguarding survivors from firearm access during the duration of protective orders is paramount to their safety and the broader well-being of communities.

MLA Director of Advocacy for Family Law Amee Vora shared, “Maryland Legal Aid is proud to stand with our fellow legal services organizations across the county in imploring the Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s dangerous decision to prioritize guns over the lives of domestic violence survivors. Having represented countless low-income clients – who are disproportionately at risk for both domestic violence and gun violence – in civil protection order cases, we know firsthand the vital role that mandatory firearm removal laws play in preventing further violence in our clients’ homes and communities. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will hear the many voices of those with lived, personal, and professional experience with these issues.”

TAP CEO Heather Bellino says, “We live in Texas, where now, since the Rahimi decision, survivors in our state do not have the same protections as those in other states. While it is vitally important that everyone understands why someone with a protective order against them shouldn’t possess a firearm, this brief is also about the law. We are hopeful the Court will agree that Rahimi was a misapplication of the Court’s guidance in Bruen. It is important for the Court to hear from practitioners on the ground, from all states, who are engaging in this work. We are grateful to all of our partner agencies who stand shoulder to shoulder with us in serving survivors.”

By joining forces to submit this critical amicus brief, these organizations aim to correct the misinterpretation of the law and advocate for the continued protection of domestic violence survivors.

For a copy of the amicus brief, please click here.

*The Coalition is comprised of the following dedicated nonprofits across the country: Atlanta Legal Aid Society, Inc., Bay Area Legal Aid, Central California Legal Services, Community Legal Aid SoCal, Eastside Legal Assistance Program, Georgia Legal Services Program, Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Indiana Health Advocacy Coalition, Indiana Legal Services, Inc., Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Legal Aid of Arkansas, Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas, Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Legal Services of Northern Virginia, Los Angeles Center of Law and Justice, Maryland Legal Aid, New Haven Legal Assistance Association, OneJustice, SAFE Alliance, Southwest Louisiana Legal Services Corporation, Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc., Texas Advocacy Project, Texas Legal Services Center, University of Texas School of Law Domestic Violence Clinic, Virginia Poverty Law Center.

Maryland Legal Aid (MLA) filed a lawsuit in Somerset County Circuit Court against Eric Sessoms and Mt. Vernon Group, LLC, who owns roughly 40 rental properties in Somerset, Worcester, and Wicomico Counties. The case stems from Mr. Sessoms and Mt. Vernon Group’s renting out properties in Princess Anne and Crisfield without a rental license. The two properties each have dozens of safety and code violations. One family lives in an insect-infested home, plagued by bedbugs and roaches, while the other family lives in fear of an electrical fire, due to the severe and dangerous electrical problems in the home. The conditions in both homes fail to meet housing code standards and Mr. Sessoms has failed to address these fundamental issues as required by law.

Mt. Vernon Group and Mr. Sessoms advertised a $2,500 security deposit for each property, but then later increased the security deposit to more than two times the monthly rent – which is illegal. The Defendants violated the Maryland ConsumerA state or federal law designed to protect consumers against improperly described, damaged, faulty, and dangerous goods and services as well as from unfair trade and credit practices. Including Legal Issues like: bankruptcy, collections, garnishment and repossession. More Protection Act and the Maryland Fair Debt CollectionTo collect a debt or obtain payment; To recover goods sold on credit or in installments when the buyer fails to pay for them. More Act by seeking rent on their unlicensed properties. Lastly, Mr. Sessoms and Mt Vernon Group retaliated against both tenants by trying to evict them after they complained about the dangerous conditions which they have a right to do. The Defendants’ retaliation is illegal.

Due to Mt. Vernon Group, LLC and Eric Sessoms’ conduct, the Truitt and Vance families have suffered extreme emotional distress, enduring sleepless nights worried about unsafe and unhealthy conditions in their own homes.

Supervising Attorney for Maryland Legal Aid’s Lower Eastern Shore Office Jamie Miliman said, “MLA warns tenants in Somerset County to be wary of these illegal and predatory tactics by landlords, particularly those families who are struggling to find affordable housing. It is important to do your research to make sure the property you are renting is licensed and does not have serious health and safety violations. If you are living in a rental property that you believe is unsafe or unhealthy, please reach out to Maryland Legal Aid or other legal resources to find out about your rights and get help.”

Complaint and Exhibits

News Coverage

• ABC47: Maryland Legal Aid files lawsuit against Somerset County landlord found to be operating without a license.

Maryland Legal Aid (MLA) filed a second lawsuit against Eric Sessoms and Mt Vernon Group, LLC, alleging that they operated another bug-infested, unlivable rental property without a license and also collected rent and evicted a tenant in that unlicensed property, which is illegal under Maryland law. The lawsuit also alleges that the Defendants collected an unlawfully large security deposit.

Because of Defendants’ actions, MLA’s client Bobbie Molina, and her children were forced into homelessness and lived out of her car for several months. Additionally, and as a result of the Defendants’ actions, Ms. Molina has experienced anxiety, depression, panic attacks, and headaches, among other symptoms of emotional distress with physical manifestations. MLA’s complaint asserts that Mr. Sessoms and Mt Vernon Group, LLC violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the Maryland Fair Debt Collection Act and failed to disclose to Ms. Molina that the Mt Vernon Group, LLC did not have a license to rent the property.

Ms. Molina’s story is tragically similar to those of two other women who have also turned to MLA for help fighting Mt Vernon Group, LLC and Mr. Sessoms. In fact, Mt Vernon Group, LLC owns roughly 40 rental properties in Somerset, Worcester, and Wicomico Counties. Mt Vernon Group LLC and Sessoms are knowingly operating unlicensed, unlivable properties to this day.

Supervising Attorney for Maryland Legal Aid’s Lower Eastern Shore Office Jamie Miliman, a leader of MLA’s statewide housing work who is spearheading this series of cases, said, “MLA warns tenants in Somerset County and across Maryland to be wary of illegal and predatory tactics by landlords, particularly those families who are struggling to find affordable housing. Though the landlords have an obligation to ensure their properties are up to code prior to renting them out, it is important to do your own research to make sure the property you are renting is licensed and has been inspected to ensure it is safe and complies with all relevant housing codes. However, no matter what a renter knows, it is never okay for landlords to operate these kinds of decrepit houses, particularly without a license. And that’s why we are suing.”

Read the Complaint here.

Read the Exhibits here.

Maryland Legal Aid (MLA) filed a lawsuit against Aziz Properties, LLC and Malik Najeeb, alleging that the unlicensed landlord failed to deliver possession of a rental property as agreed, engaged in multiple acts of retaliation against Mr. Knight and Mrs. Rolle, and violated Maryland consumer protection laws. The lawsuit alleges that the consumer protection violations stem from the Defendants misleading Mr. Knight and Ms. Rolle regarding when the property would be ready for occupancy, failing to disclose dangerous and hazardous conditions in the property, failing to disclose that they did not have a license to rent the property, and seeking to collect rent that had already been paid.

To add to the already awful situation, when the tenants moved into the property over two weeks late, Mr. Knight and Ms. Rolle found property defects. They contacted the City’s Code Administrative Division, who inspected the property and found numerous housing code violations, including that the gas water heater in the home was installed incorrectly and vented inside the home. When the most serious violations were not remedied, the property was condemned, and the tenants were displaced a second time. Because of Defendants’ actions, MLA’s clients Mr. Knight, Ms. Rolle, and their two minor children were forced into homelessness twice and suffered severe anxiety and emotional distress.

Staff Attorney for Maryland Legal Aid’s Midwestern Office Jennifer E.S. Weil said, “Aziz Properties, LLC and Malik Najeeb violated a host of landlord-tenant and consumer protection laws in this case, and we have discovered that they own multiple other properties in Hagerstown, Maryland which have been condemned, leading to the displacement of other tenants.”

This is MLA’s third case against unlicensed landlords who retaliate against vulnerable people and violate Maryland’s consumer protection laws. MLA seeks to hold landlords accountable for complying with the law and to eradicate this widespread problem that too often leaves tenants living in substandard and horrific conditions.

Read the complaint here.