HUD Changes Policy on Emotional Support Animals as Reasonable Accommodations

HUD rules, applied to enforce federal laws in public housing, also often signal developing trends. For example, HUD enforcement of a mandatory Smoke-Free Public Housing Rule that prohibits lit tobacco products inside all public housing units, indoor common areas, and within 25 feet of these buildings, preceded and likely influenced the development of smoking policies now distributed to tenants in NYC apartment buildings.

A recent HUD Memo on assistance animals, therefore, offers some insight into developing standards for assistance animal exemptions to no-pet policies. The memo also signals that distinctions between “service animals” and “emotional support animals” (ESAs) may become more important in the future when assessing a disabled tenant’s request for a reasonable accommodation under federal, state, and city law.

Memo Applies to HUD Enforcement

On May 22, 2026, the HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) issued an enforcement memorandum (“HUD Memo”) fundamentally changing the rules the agency will follow in handling animal-related reasonable accommodation complaints under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA).

HUD defines a reasonable accommodation as “a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice or service that may be necessary for a person with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces, or to fulfill their program obligations” [if they’re in federally assisted housing]. As spelled out in the FHA regulations, exempting a disabled tenant’s assistance animal from a building’s pet restrictions is an example of a reasonable accommodation that a landlord might have to make.

For over a decade, HUD enforcers have interpreted “assistance animal” as including not only trained service animals but also emotional support animals without training. As a result, to keep a pet in the apartment, tenants often have needed only to produce a letter from a licensed health professional certifying that they rely on the animal for their disability-related needs.

With the release of the HUD Memo, those days may be waning.

What Are Assistance Animals?

On Jan. 28, 2020, HUD issued guidance (2020 Guidance) clarifying that assistance animals aren’t pets, but rather dogs and other common domestic household animals, trained and untrained, that do work, perform tasks, provide assistance, and/or provide therapeutic emotional support for individuals with disabilities. The 2020 HUD Guidance identifies two kinds of “assistance animals.”

• Service animals are dogs trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, such as guiding a person with a visual impairment. That’s the same definition the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) uses. So, if a dog is a service animal under the ADA, it’s also a service animal for which an accommodation may be required under the FHA.
• Emotional support animals (ESAs) include but aren’t limited to dogs that don’t need to have any specialized training in assisting a disabled person. All that’s required is that the animal serve a tenant’s disability-related need, such as a stray cat that a tenant adopts off the street to help deal with emotional anxieties.

What Is a Service Animal?

The ADA defines a service animal as one that’s “individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.” The tasks performed must be “directly related” to the disability. Examples:

• Helping blind individuals navigate;
• Alerting individuals who are deaf to sounds;
• Assisting during seizures;
• Retrieving items, providing physical support and balance; and
• Helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities.

The ADA also recognizes service animals trained to assist individuals with psychiatric and other mental disabilities. Commonly referred to as “psychiatric service dogs,” these animals may be trained to perform specific, disability-related tasks such as:

• Interrupting panic attacks or anxiety episodes;
• Waking a handler experiencing nightmares related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD);
• Providing Deep Pressure Therapy by using its body to apply pressure to help calm a handler experiencing anxiety, panic, or emotional distress;
• Retrieving medication or summoning assistance when a handler is experiencing a mental health crisis;
• Alerting a handler to physical signs of an impending anxiety episode, such as pacing, repetitive movements or leg shaking;
• Helping a handler maintain orientation and personal space during periods of anxiety or in crowded environments; and
• Guiding a disoriented handler to a safe location, such as an exit, vehicle, or home.

The important distinction under the ADA—and hence, the new HUD Memo—is that the animal must be individually trained to perform work or tasks related to a person’s physical or mental disability.

New HUD Memo Revokes Old Guidance

The 2026 HUD Memo says that the 2020 Guidance, while “well intentioned,” didn’t provide “greater clarity on the supposed distinction between pets and [ESAs].” Instead, it inspired an “entire industry” of websites selling certificates, registrations, and licensing documents verifying that a pet is an ESA to any client who answers certain questions or participates in a short interview and pays a fee. Landlords who ask questions or challenge these certifications run the risk of a fair housing complaint and prolonged investigation.

As a result, the HUD Memo revokes the 2020 Guidance. From now on, HUD investigators and enforcement personnel will use the training component of the ADA definition for service animals in determining whether there’s reasonable cause to pursue an animal-related reasonable accommodation complaint under the FHA.

Bottom line: Under the HUD Memo, simply providing “emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship [does] not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.” The HUD Memo specifies, “FHEO no longer expects housing providers to categorically extend reasonable accommodations for trained assistance animals to untrained ESAs.” Thus, while requests to waive pet policies for trained assistance animals will be presumed a reasonable accommodation, the presumption won’t apply to requests to waive pet policies for untrained ESAs.

Should You Update Your Policies to Exclude ESAs?

In short, no. While the HUD Memo intends to make it easier for landlords to determine whether requested animal-related accommodations are reasonable, in reality, relying on the HUD Memo principles as justification to deny ESAs because they’re untrained would be risky.

That’s because the HUD Memo applies only to FHA complaints submitted to HUD. But complaining to HUD isn’t the only way to enforce the FHA. Individuals and fair housing organizations can also bring private lawsuits in federal and state courts. And unlike FHEO investigators, judges won’t have to rely on HUD Memo criteria. Consequently, requiring assistance animals to be trained may increase a landlord’s liability risks in such cases.

While the HUD memo signals a shift in federal prosecution, there are two major risk areas that remain:

State and city law violations. The New York City Human Rights Law, for example, protects the rights of tenants to keep emotional support animals in their home as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Refusing to approve an ESA without a legitimate reason could lead to a violation of city or state law, which is just as serious as violating the federal FHA.

Case law precedent. If a tenant files a private lawsuit, which they may be more motivated to do now that HUD’s position has changed, state and federal courts are not required to rely on an agency memo. Most current case law precedent still recognizes a tenant’s right to have an ESA as a reasonable accommodation.

Takeaway

The HUD Memo signals a major enforcement shift by the agency that may influence New York courts and agencies in their review of housing discrimination claims based on disability in connection with no-pet policies. And it may spur state and local lawmakers to revise rules regarding ESAs as well. We’ll keep you posted.

Landlord Must Pay Fine, Compensatory and Punitive Damages

for Harassing Tenant with Service Dog

A recent New York appeals court decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between a tenant’s pet and a disabled tenant’s assistance animal when responding to requests for waiver of a building’s no-pet provisions.

In Matter of NY State Div. of Human Rights v. Winnie, an Ulster County tenant complained of unlawful housing discrimination based on disability to the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). The tenant claimed that his landlord failed to accommodate his disabilities by charging a pet deposit and monthly fee for his service dog, and later taking steps to coerce him into moving out. The DHR ruled for the tenant and ordered a $15,000 civil fine as well as compensatory and punitive damages. When the landlord failed to pay the fine and damages, the DHR sued the landlord to enforce its order.

The court ruled for the DHR, finding that the agency’s finding of housing discrimination was supported by substantial evidence. There was no dispute that the tenant was disabled. The tenant had submitted to the landlord letters from his doctor explaining that the use of his trained service dog to assist in daily tasks was necessary for his independence and quality of life.

Still, the landlord required a pet deposit and monthly pet fee. When the tenant stopped paying the monthly fee, the landlord blocked the building’s wheelchair ramp by parking vehicles in front of it and placing large items against it. The landlord also played music at an excessive volume continuously for 28 days on a radio in an area inaccessible to the tenant. The tenant ultimately moved out. The landlord also had admitted to the police during that time that he took these actions to get the tenant to move out of the apartment [CV-25-0535, 2026 NY Slip Op 03041, LVT #34187 (App. Div. 3 Dept. 5/14/26)].