News

On May 22, 2026, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a memorandum titled “Enforcement Guidance – Assessing Requests for the Use of an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act.”  The memo provides guidance on how HUD will now enforce requests for emotional support animals (ESAs) as reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act.  

Previously, HUD took the position that both trained service animals and untrained ESAs are not considered pets, and, therefore, housing providers had limited ability to deny requests to maintain such animals or charge pet fees.  This position was contained in guidance documents issued by HUD in both 2013 and 2020.

However, HUD has now rescinded that stance, taking the position that the prior guidance created confusion in evaluating requests to maintain ESAs, encouraged abuse through online ESA certification services, and effectively imposed obligations on housing providers without formal rulemaking. 

Accordingly, effective as of the date of the memorandum, HUD will evaluate service animals and ESAs the same by looking to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of a “service animal” as a guide in fair housing enforcement cases for ESAs.  Under the ADA, a service animal is “individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.”  HUD will also specifically focus on whether the animal is trained to perform a task directly related to the person's disability, even for ESAs, which typically have no training. 

In other words, emotional support, comfort, companionship, or general well-being alone will not be sufficient for HUD and HUD no longer expects housing providers to categorically extend accommodations granted for trained assistance animals to untrained ESAs.

While the memorandum is a marked shift in how requests for ESAs will be evaluated by HUD in fair housing enforcement cases, there is still a robust body of jurisprudence through case law, statutes, and regulations that attorneys will continue to look to when formulating advice for their community association clients.  This HUD action does not supersede existing case law and has no bearing on the application of state and local fair housing laws.  For example, Virginia has a specific assistance animal statute that applies to animals that “provide emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability.”  Maryland and D.C. civil and human rights commissions tend to take a liberal approach in fair housing enforcement cases.   

The bottom line is that associations should continue to consult with legal counsel on specific fair housing matters applicable to their jurisdictions.

Finally, we can expect to receive more concrete regulations from HUD, as the memo announces HUD's intention to undertake future notice-and-comment rulemaking to develop updated standards for animal-related accommodations.  Rees Broome will provide updates as that information is available.