New HUD Guidance on Animal-Related Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act

On May 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a memorandum setting forth its guidance relating to animal-related reasonable accommodations under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In the memorandum, HUD rescinds its 2020 assistance animal guidance and provides that HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) will find reasonable cause of an FHA violation only in cases involving animals that are individually trained to provide disability-related assistance. HUD’s newest guidance is a drastic departure from its prior written guidance on this issue, stemming back years, including the aforementioned, now-rescinded 2020 guidance, as well as HUD’s April 25, 2013, memorandum regarding emotional support animals. However, as described below, HUD’s newest guidance under this memorandum is only a first step toward a more restrictive approach to tenant requests for animal-related reasonable accommodations on a more widespread, nationwide basis.

HUD’s Updated Interpretation of Animal-Related Accommodations

HUD’s 2020 guidance permitted reasonable accommodation requests for both trained service animals and untrained assistance animals (also known as emotional support animals). Specifically, under its 2013 memorandum, HUD defined an assistance animal as any animal (trained or untrained) that works for, provides assistance to, or performs tasks for a disabled tenant, or that otherwise provides “emotional support” that alleviates one or more effects or symptoms of a tenant’s disability. Such definition proved incredibly broad, with virtually any type of animal — from dogs and cats to snakes, birds and rabbits — being capable of equating to an emotional support animal so long as a health care provider provided a written statement that such animal provides some type of emotional support to a person with any type of disability. The latest guidance is a significant departure from that standard. HUD explains that the prior framework created confusion for housing providers regarding the distinction between pets and emotional support animals.

In place of the prior approach, HUD adopts a training-based standard. Because FHA regulations do not define “animal-related reasonable accommodations,” HUD found the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of “service animal” instructive. Such definition is significantly narrower than the aforementioned prior definition used by HUD. 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.” 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 36.104. Consistent with that definition, FHEO will evaluate animal-related reasonable accommodation requests under the FHA based on whether the animal has been individually trained to perform disability-related tasks.

Anticipated Impact and Future Development

This guidance certainly signals a shift toward a more restrictive approach to animal-related accommodations, but it is only a first step.

HUD intends to engage in notice and comment rulemaking to more formally address animal-related accommodations and to better align FHA regulations with ADA standards.

Until then, landlords and housing providers must remember that HUD guidance is merely guidance to both courts and state and local agencies and is not law. That said, state legislators may revisit their state fair housing laws regarding animal-related reasonable accommodation laws during upcoming legislative sessions in response, or state agencies may engage in rulemaking similar to HUD in response. Likewise, state and local agencies that enforce both state and federal fair housing laws may also adjust their practices and positions in response. Many states, including Iowa and Minnesota, and local agencies receive funding under the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), which requires the states and agencies to administer fair housing laws with rights, procedures, remedies, and judicial review that are “substantially equivalent” to the FHA, or otherwise risk FHAP funding. This may create a meaningful incentive for FHAP-certified states and agencies to adopt HUD’s narrower approach to animal-related reasonable accommodation complaints. However, many states currently have state fair housing laws that contain broader definitions of assistance animals, such as Minnesota where its landlord-tenant statute, Minn. Ch. 504B, expressly provides that assistance animals do “not need to be trained to perform a specific disability-related task.” (See Minn. Stat. 504B.113(1)(c)). Fredrikson attorneys are actively engaging with various state agencies, including with the Iowa Office of Civil Rights, regarding the implications of this new guidance and whether state rulemaking may occur to correspond with HUD’s rulemaking.

Until the regulatory landscape stabilizes, immediate changes by landlords to their current approach to animal-related accommodation requests would be risky and are generally not recommended, even in light of HUD’s narrower enforcement posture because (1) the HUD guidance is merely guidance, and (2) state agencies and individuals may still pursue housing violations by landlords under their state or federal fair housing laws. As noted in HUD’s memorandum, “the Fair Housing Act provides that a complainant may file a civil action in an appropriate federal district court or state court within two years after the occurrence or termination of the alleged discriminatory housing practice. Nothing in this enforcement guidance affects the rights of parties to seek redress through a private action in court.”

Conversely, those landlords with active HUD cases will see an immediate effect. Per the memorandum, Regional Directors are directed to send all open emotional support animal cases to the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs for a case-by-case determination on the merits consistent with HUD’s narrower guidance per its memorandum.

Finally, of note, there are two courts around the nation that have taken a more restrictive approach consistent with HUD’s newest approach. Those courts held that waiving pet fees or similar policies is not required as a reasonable accommodation in certain circumstances. See Henderson v. Five Props. LLC, No. 24-750, 2025 WL 1951763 (E.D. La. July 16, 2025); Leslie v. 1125 Hammond, LP, 889 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). Notably, HUD expressly cited Henderson in its guidance, agreeing with the court’s conclusion that HUD’s 2020 guidance was “unpersuasive.”

Housing providers should seek legal advice on their specific matters from their attorneys.

Key Takeaways

• HUD adopts a narrower, training-based enforcement standard and varying state fair housing statutes. HUD has rescinded its prior guidance and will now evaluate animal-related reasonable accommodation requests based on whether an assistance animal has been individually trained to perform disability-related tasks.
• The impact of HUD’s guidance remains uncertain amid the shifting legal landscape. HUD’s guidance reflects a shift in its enforcement priorities, but not a change to the FHA itself or state fair housing laws. Landlords still face risk from private litigation and state or local enforcement. However, HUD has signaled future rulemaking on this topic. Until the landscape stabilizes, housing providers should proceed cautiously, as outcomes remain fact-specific and jurisdiction-dependent.

If you have questions regarding this guidance or landlord-tenant law in general, please contact Jodie McDougal.

This article does not provide legal advice. The materials in this article have been prepared by Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. and its consulting subsidiaries for informational purposes only. For more information, visit Fredrikson’s disclaimer.