On 五月份 22, 2026 HUD issued an internal memo regarding assistance animals and emotional support animals (ESAs) in housing. This memo instructs HUD staff to find probable cause in assistance animal cases only when the animal is a service animal that has been formally trained to perform specific tasks (aligning with the Americans with Disabilities Act standard for services animals). The memo also rescinds the 2020 HUD guidance on assistance animals.
Additionally, the memo indicates that HUD intends to issue a future rule which aligns the Fair Housing Act definition of assistance animals with the ADA definition (meaning that housing providers would be required to permit only trained service animals, and not ESAs or other untrained assistance animals). Rulemaking is a process which requires public notice of the proposed regulation, a comment period, and the publication of a final rule. HUD has not provided a timeline for the issuance of a proposed rule.
What has not changed?
Although the HUD memo cites a recent court decision which held that refusing to waive a pet deposit for an emotional support animal was not a violation of the Fair Housing Act, other existing legal precedent supports Fair Housing Act liability for refusing to permit ESAs without fees as a reasonable accommodation. Until any final rule is issued by HUD and takes effect, courts will continue relying on prior legal standards and case law. Individuals who allege that a denial of a reasonable accommodation request for an ESA or other untrained assistance animals is a violation of the Fair Housing Act can still file a lawsuit in federal court.
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act offers additional protections for any individual “user or because the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals”. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) will continue to accept complaints involving the denial of ESAs or untrained support animals. The PHRC has indicated that it plans to issue written guidance on its position regarding assistance animals in the near future.
What does this mean for housing providers?
Previously, the HUD administrative process was available to complainants who wished to file a complaint involving a housing provider’s unwillingness to permit an ESA or other untrained assistance animal. Now HUD has indicated that it will no longer issue probable cause findings in these complaints. However, housing providers should not assume that they no longer risk legal exposure when denying such requests. Consumers may still file complaints in state or federal courts or with the PHRC.
Housing providers should continue to implement a process to respond appropriately to all reasonable accommodation requests in a manner that complies with Fair Housing Act standards and should consult legal counsel prior to changing existing practices. In addition, housing providers should be aware that taking any action to revoke previous reasonable accommodations may pose additional risk of liability.
What does this mean for consumers?
If an individual with a disability-related need is denied permission to have an ESA (or other animal that is not trained to do work or perform a task) as a reasonable accommodation in housing, filing a complaint with HUD will no longer be a viable enforcement option. Now, consumers will need to file this type of complaint in federal court or may choose to file a complaint under state law, either with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission or in commonwealth court.
Please continue to contact HECP for any questions about this or other topics, for technical assistance on fair housing compliance, or to report housing discrimination.