HUD’s New ESA Enforcement Memorandum
What Housing Providers Need to Know About HUD’s New Approach to Emotional Support Animals (ESAs)
On May 22, 2026, HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) issued new enforcement guidance that significantly changes how complaints involving emotional support animals (ESAs) and reasonable accommodation requests will be evaluated under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The memorandum rescinds prior HUD guidance and signals a major policy shift toward standards resembling those used under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Key Changes
- HUD Will Prioritize Cases Involving Trained Assistance Animals
Effective immediately, HUD states it will generally find reasonable cause and pursue enforcement only in cases involving animals trained to perform disability-related tasks. Complaints involving untrained emotional support animals will no longer receive the same enforcement priority.
HUD explains that requests to waive pet policies for trained animals are presumptively reasonable, while requests involving untrained ESAs are not automatically considered reasonable accommodations. - HUD Is Adopting the ADA’s “Training” Concept
The memorandum relies heavily on the ADA’s definition of service animals: animals individually trained to perform tasks directly related to a person’s disability. Examples include guiding individuals with visual impairments, alerting individuals with hearing loss, seizure response, retrieving items, or assisting with psychiatric disabilities. Emotional support, comfort, companionship, or well-being alone would not qualify as trained tasks under this standard.
Importantly, HUD notes that unlike the ADA, qualifying assistance animals under the FHA could still include species other than dogs, provided they are trained to perform disability-related tasks. - Prior HUD ESA Guidance Has Been Rescinded
HUD permanently rescinded its 2020 guidance regarding assistance animals and reaffirmed rescission of earlier 2013 guidance. Those documents had broadly treated ESAs similarly to service animals and generally prohibited pet fees or restrictions. HUD now argues those policies contributed to confusion and encouraged misuse of ESA designations. - Increased Scrutiny of ESA Documentation
The memo criticizes the growth of online services offering quick ESA letters and suggests prior standards lacked sufficient clarity. HUD cites concerns that an industry emerged to convert ordinary pets into ESAs, creating compliance uncertainty for housing providers.
What This Means for Housing Providers
The memo does not eliminate reasonable accommodation obligations under the Fair Housing Act. Housing providers must still evaluate accommodation requests on an individualized basis. However, HUD indicates it will focus enforcement resources on complaints involving trained assistance animals rather than untrained ESAs.
Housing providers should note:
• Requests involving trained animals performing disability-related tasks remain highly protected.
• Requests involving untrained ESAs may face increased scrutiny and are no longer presumed entitled to accommodation.
• Requests to waive pet policies for untrained ESAs are not presumptively reasonable. Presumably “pet policies” would include pet fees, pet deposits and pet rent.
• Existing ESA requests should still be reviewed carefully and on a case-by-case basis.
• Denial of an accommodation request may still lead to private litigation, regardless of HUD’s enforcement posture. The memorandum expressly preserves individuals’ right to file lawsuits in federal or state courts.
Relevant Cases Highlighted by HUD
HUD cited a 2025 federal case in which a court rejected an ESA-related accommodation claim involving waiver of an animal fee. The court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove that waiving the fee was necessary or reasonable, particularly because alternative arrangements (such as a payment plan) were available. The court also found prior HUD guidance on ESA fee waivers unpersuasive.
A recent Texas appellate decision similarly held that an eviction for unpaid rent was not discriminatory simply because a tenant claimed an ESA accommodation; the court found no connection between the disability accommodation request and the underlying lease violation.
Looking Ahead
HUD states it intends to pursue formal notice-and-comment rulemaking to update regulations governing animal-related accommodations and align them more closely with ADA standards. The agency emphasizes that future regulations should balance the interests of housing providers with the rights of individuals with disabilities.
Bottom Line
HUD’s new enforcement posture marks a substantial shift from broad ESA protections toward a framework emphasizing training, disability-related tasks, and individualized assessment. In practice, ESA accommodation verification letters from an online provider that do not provide evidence that the ESA was trained to perform specific tasks are unlikely to meet HUD’s new standards. Letters which state generally that an ESA provides “emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship” clearly would not qualify under the new standards. Even if an animal is approved as an ESA, landlords are not automatically required to waive all fees, deposits and other pet policies that apply to animals at the community. Landlords can consider those requests on a case-by-case basis and determine whether there is a disability-related need or reasonable alternative to a waiver of such policies. Landlords should monitor this issue closely as HUD has indicated that it will be updating its regulations after a rule-making process.
Lastly, there are some caveats to how broadly these changes will be applied. The memo relates to HUD’s enforcement policies; residents and applicants can still file a private right of action within two years of any alleged violation. State and local fair housing agencies applying their own laws may continue their own broader requirements rather than following HUD’s new policies. Lawsuits challenging the new HUD policies are expected.
The information provided is intended for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice, legal interpretation, or a legal opinion. The views and observations expressed by the author are her own and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas (AAGD), or their affiliated organizations.
This article is designed to provide practical insight and industry education to support informed decision-making within the rental housing industry. It is not intended to establish legal requirements, industry standards, or operational mandates.