A new HUD memorandum is generating headlines suggesting that emotional support animals (ESAs) may no longer receive protection under federal fair housing law. Some articles have gone so far as to suggest that associations can now deny ESA requests that previously would have been approved.
The reality is more complicated.
On May 22, 2026, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity issued a memorandum directing HUD enforcement staff to prioritize cases involving animals that have been trained to perform disability-related tasks. The memorandum represents a significant shift in HUD’s enforcement approach, although it does not amend the Fair Housing Act itself.
While this is an important development, associations should not assume that ESA requests have disappeared or that existing accommodation procedures can be abandoned.
What Changed?
For years, HUD guidance generally treated emotional support animals and trained service animals as “assistance animals” that could qualify as reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act.
The new memorandum takes a different position. Importantly, the memorandum primarily addresses how HUD will investigate and pursue complaints, not what the Fair Housing Act itself says.
HUD states that it will generally find reasonable cause and pursue enforcement actions involving animals trained to perform disability-related work or tasks, while declining to prioritize cases involving untrained emotional support animals. HUD also rescinded prior agency guidance that treated emotional support animals as assistance animals for Fair Housing Act purposes.
HUD relies heavily on ADA concepts, particularly the distinction between trained service animals and animals that provide comfort or companionship without specific task-based training.
What Did Not Change?
The Fair Housing Act itself has not changed.
Nor has existing case law automatically changed. Courts across the country have reached differing conclusions regarding emotional support animals, and many decisions recognizing ESAs as potential reasonable accommodations remain on the books. While the HUD memorandum relies on recent cases critical of prior HUD guidance, those decisions do not automatically displace other federal and state court precedents.
Congress has not amended the statute. HUD has not adopted new regulations through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Courts have not suddenly overturned decades of fair housing decisions involving emotional support animals.
In fact, the HUD memorandum expressly acknowledges that individuals retain the right to pursue private lawsuits in federal or state court regardless of HUD’s enforcement priorities.
That distinction is important.
HUD can decide how it allocates its enforcement resources. It cannot unilaterally rewrite the Fair Housing Act.
Many courts have recognized emotional support animals as potential reasonable accommodations under appropriate circumstances. While the memorandum discusses recent cases that were critical of prior HUD guidance, those decisions do not eliminate existing precedent from other jurisdictions.
Why the Memorandum Still Matters
Although the law itself has not changed, the memorandum should not be dismissed as meaningless.
HUD investigates thousands of fair housing complaints. The agency’s enforcement position often influences how accommodation disputes are evaluated, how complaints are resolved, and how courts view emerging issues.
The memorandum also signals that HUD may pursue formal rulemaking in the future with the stated goal of bringing Fair Housing Act standards closer to ADA service animal standards. Whether such rulemaking would survive legal challenge, and what affect it would have on existing case law, remains to be seen.
What About State and Local Law?
This may be the most important point for associations.
Many states have fair housing laws that provide protections beyond federal law. Some state agencies have historically taken broader views of disability accommodations than HUD. Local ordinances may also affect how accommodation requests are evaluated.
A change in HUD’s enforcement position does not automatically change state law requirements. Depending on the jurisdiction, state agencies and courts may continue applying standards that recognize emotional support animals as reasonable accommodations.
In North Carolina, associations should remember that housing discrimination claims may arise not only under the federal Fair Housing Act, but also under North Carolina fair housing laws. In addition, certain local governments, including Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, maintain fair housing programs that investigate housing discrimination complaints. As a result, a shift in HUD’s enforcement priorities does not necessarily mean that state courts, local enforcement agencies, or other decision-makers will reach the same result in a particular case. North Carolina courts and agencies are not automatically bound by HUD’s current enforcement position.
Associations should therefore avoid assuming that a federal enforcement memorandum overrides state or local requirements.
Practical Guidance for Associations
For now, the safest approach is largely the same approach associations should have been following before the memorandum:
- Continue evaluating accommodation requests individually.
- Continue engaging in the interactive process when additional information is reasonably needed.
- Avoid automatic approvals and automatic denials.
- Review applicable federal, state, and local fair housing requirements before making decisions.
- Consult experienced community association legal counsel when requests involve unusual facts, multiple animals, questionable documentation, or competing safety concerns.
Boards should view the memorandum as an important development and a signal of HUD’s current priorities. They should not view it as a blanket authorization to deny emotional support animal requests.
Takeaways
The new HUD memorandum reflects a significant shift in federal enforcement priorities regarding emotional support animals. It likely will influence future investigations and may foreshadow broader regulatory changes.
At the same time, the Fair Housing Act itself remains unchanged, private lawsuits remain available, and state and local laws may continue providing protections for emotional support animals.
For community associations, the prudent response is neither to ignore the memorandum nor to assume emotional support animals have lost all legal protection. Boards should continue evaluating accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis, while recognizing that HUD’s enforcement priorities have changed and that future court decisions, state law developments, and potential federal rulemaking may further shape this area of law.