A dispute between Governor Josh Shapiro and his Montgomery County neighbors, the Mock family, has escalated into federal and state lawsuits over a roughly 3,000-square-foot parcel along their property line.

The Mocks allege Shapiro tried to seize the land through adverse possession, planted trees, used drones, and directed State Police to patrol the area, effectively curtailing the neighbors’ use of their land.

The Mocks filed a federal suit claiming Shapiro abused his power, took possession of part of their land for security upgrades after the 2024 arson at the governor’s residence, and possibly directed troopers to patrol the area.

News outlets report that CBS 21 sought comment from the Governor’s Office and the Pennsylvania State Police, but responses were not reported at the time.

Shapiro’s spokesperson says he seeks a swift resolution and rejects what he calls political points about his family’s safety.

Both sides characterize the opposing party’s filings as political maneuvering, with the Mock attorney declining to comment.

The case sits within a broader context of prior legislative scrutiny over security upgrades to the governor’s home after an attempted assassination, framing the current dispute.

Officials described the Mock lawsuit as a political stunt meant to exploit the governor’s security concerns.

Observers note the case could distract the governor from national ambitions, including a potential 2028 presidential bid, as his memoir is released and the dispute draws attention to state power, private property, and optics.

The filing asserts the governor directed State Police to patrol the disputed zone, with troopers allegedly enforcing access restrictions and telling neighbors to leave their own land, according to the suit and photo evidence.

The case is in Montgomery County, with the Mock’s federal suit and the Shapiros’ countersuit filed in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.

The Mock filing indicates that around late August 2025, Shapiro’s counsel signaled pursuing ‘alternative actions’ to obtain the land, prompting claims of illegal appropriation via adverse possession.