Federal housing update: HUD withdrew its 2013 and 2020 animal guidance and adopted a narrower Fair Housing Act enforcement standard in May 2026. The statute itself did not change, and other laws may apply. Read the full update.
Housing is the setting most closely associated with emotional support animals, but the federal rules changed substantially in 2025 and 2026.
A person should not assume either that every ESA must be accepted or that every untrained ESA can now be rejected. The correct answer may depend on the property, the animal's training, the person's disability-related need, controlling court law, Section 504, and state or local protections.
The Fair Housing Act
The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 and following sections, prohibits housing discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. It applies to covered housing providers, including landlords and real estate companies. Disability includes a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
Emotional support animals can be protected under the Act’s reasonable-accommodation requirement. A covered housing provider must grant a reasonable accommodation when it is necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, even when the property has a strict no-pets policy. The disability-related need and the requested accommodation must meet the applicable legal standard.
An animal request commonly asks the housing provider to change a rule such as:
- a no-pets policy;
- a species, size, or breed rule;
- a limit on the number of animals;
- a pet fee or pet deposit;
- a rule restricting animals from common areas.
Whether the requested change is legally required is a fact-specific question.
For years, HUD’s assistance-animal guidance recognized that animals providing disability-related comfort or therapeutic benefit could qualify for housing accommodations without task training. Those guidance documents have since been withdrawn, but the underlying statute remains in force.
What changed in HUD’s enforcement approach
On May 22, 2026, HUD issued an internal enforcement memo directing its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to find reasonable cause and recommend charges in animal-accommodation cases only for animals trained to provide disability-related assistance. The memo reaffirmed the withdrawal of earlier ESA guidance; the 2013 and 2020 notices had been withdrawn effective September 17, 2025.
This substantially narrows HUD’s FHA enforcement support for tenants with untrained ESAs. It does not amend the Fair Housing Act or overrule existing court decisions. The statute’s reasonable-accommodation language does not include an express animal-training requirement.
HUD’s enforcement approach draws on the ADA’s trained-task standard. Under the ADA’s public-access rules, comfort or companionship alone is not a trained task. The ADA generally covers service dogs, with separate provisions for miniature horses. HUD’s housing memo uses the training requirement but does not limit qualifying trained assistance animals to dogs.
Private FHA lawsuits remain available in federal or state court. The usual filing period is two years after the discriminatory practice occurred or ended, with statutory exceptions and time excluded for certain administrative proceedings. A HUD complaint generally is not a prerequisite to filing a private action.
A complaint involving an untrained ESA faces a substantial obstacle under HUD’s current FHA enforcement policy. That does not eliminate court remedies or determine a claim under Section 504, the ADA, or state or local law. A person facing a denial should identify all applicable protections and filing deadlines.
Read The 2026 HUD Policy Change for the history, limits, and source documents.
Does the Fair Housing Act still matter for an untrained ESA?
Yes, but the outcome is uncertain.
The statutory reasonable-accommodation language remains in effect. Some earlier court decisions recognized untrained emotional support animals as possible accommodations. HUD now disputes the broad interpretation used in its former guidance, and at least one recent federal trial-court decision rejected an ESA-related fee-waiver claim on the facts before it.
A private court may analyze:
- whether the person has a disability;
- whether the housing provider knew or should have known of the disability;
- whether an accommodation was requested;
- whether the requested accommodation was necessary;
- whether it was reasonable;
- whether the provider refused it;
- what controlling federal, state, or local law requires.
The legal test and available claims can vary by jurisdiction.
What kind of housing is covered?
The Fair Housing Act covers most housing, including much privately owned and publicly supported housing. Limited exemptions may apply, but exemptions are technical and may not extend to discriminatory advertising or state law.
Other laws may apply to:
- public housing;
- housing-choice voucher programs;
- federally funded housing;
- university housing;
- shelters;
- condominiums and homeowner associations;
- senior housing;
- group homes.
Section 504 may impose separate obligations on recipients of federal financial assistance.
What kind of documentation is needed?
A housing provider may need reliable information when a disability or the relationship between the disability and requested accommodation is not apparent.
Because HUD withdrew its 2020 documentation framework, old checklists should not be treated as current binding HUD policy. As a practical matter, documentation may address:
- whether the person has a disability as defined by applicable law;
- the functional limitation relevant to housing;
- how the animal or its trained work relates to that limitation;
- the accommodation being requested;
- the provider's professional relationship and basis for the opinion;
- any disability-related training performed by the animal.
A person generally should not disclose more medical information than is reasonably necessary. Housing providers should avoid demanding complete medical records without a lawful, individualized reason.
See ESA Letters and Documentation.
A housing provider may consider behavior, safety, and damage
Accommodation law does not require a housing provider to ignore actual threats or substantial property damage.
A decision should generally be based on the particular animal's conduct, not stereotypes about breed or species. Relevant concerns may include:
- documented aggression;
- uncontrolled behavior;
- repeated noise;
- unsanitary conditions;
- failure to comply with lawful vaccination or licensing rules;
- substantial property damage;
- inability of the handler to control or care for the animal.
A provider should consider whether a reasonable step could reduce the problem before ending an accommodation.
What about multiple animals?
A request for more than one animal should be evaluated individually. The person may need to explain the disability-related role of each animal and why each requested accommodation is necessary.
The number of animals, unit size, species, sanitation, care plan, and actual burden may be relevant. A generic letter saying that several animals provide “support” may not be enough.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. It can affect federally funded housing and educational institutions.
HUD’s May 2026 memorandum expressly says it does not address HUD’s processing of animal complaints under Section 504 or the ADA. A Section 504 analysis may therefore differ from HUD’s new Fair Housing Act enforcement standard.
Because Section 504 coverage depends on the recipient, program, facts, and requested accommodation, qualified legal review may be necessary.
The Americans with Disabilities Act
Under ADA Titles II and III, a service animal is generally a dog individually trained to perform disability-related work or tasks. A dog’s presence, comfort, or emotional support does not qualify as a task.
An ESA therefore has no general public-access right under these ADA rules to accompany a person into:
- restaurants;
- grocery stores;
- hotels;
- theaters;
- clinics;
- government offices;
- other public accommodations.
A state or city may provide broader access, but the person should verify the specific law before bringing an ESA into a no-pets location. A housing accommodation does not by itself create public-access rights.
Air Carrier Access Act
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s current rule defines a service animal for air travel as a dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability. It no longer requires airlines to treat emotional support animals as service animals.
An airline may:
- transport an ESA under its pet policy;
- charge a pet fee;
- require a carrier;
- impose size, species, and route restrictions permitted by law;
- decline to transport an animal that does not meet its policy.
Psychiatric service dogs are treated as service animals if they satisfy the federal definition and required procedures.
State and local protection
Some states and cities define assistance animals or support animals more broadly than HUD's current federal enforcement approach. They may also regulate documentation, fees, provider relationships, and misrepresentation.
Before approving or denying a request, check:
- state fair-housing statutes;
- local civil-rights ordinances;
- state licensing-board rules;
- state ESA-letter laws;
- program-specific housing rules.
For definitions of recurring terms, see the plain-language glossary.
Sources
- 42 U.S.C. § 3604
- 24 C.F.R. § 100.204
- HUD, Fair Housing Act Overview
- HUD, May 22, 2026 Animal-Accommodation Enforcement Guidance
- HUD, September 17, 2025 Withdrawal Notice
- U.S. Department of Justice, Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act
- U.S. Department of Justice, Service Animals and Assistance Animals
- Federal Register, Notification of Withdrawal of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Guidance Documents, 91 Fed. Reg. 17291 (Apr. 6, 2026)
- 42 U.S.C. § 3613, Private enforcement and filing conditions
- 42 U.S.C. § 3602, Fair Housing Act definitions
- 29 U.S.C. § 794, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
- U.S. Department of Justice, Frequently Asked Questions About Service Animals and the ADA
- U.S. Department of Transportation, Final Rule on Traveling by Air With Service Animals
- Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Association, Third Circuit opinion (2017)