On May 22, 2026, HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)
issued an enforcement guidance memorandum that significantly reshapes the federal
enforcement landscape for assistance animal accommodation requests. The
memorandum formally rescinds FHEO Notice 2020-01—the longstanding guidance that
drew a bright-line distinction between “pets” and “assistance animals” and effectively
barred housing providers from charging pet fees for emotional support animals (ESAs).

Going forward, HUD states it will find reasonable cause and pursue charges only
in cases involving animals that have been “individually trained to do work or perform
tasks directly related to the complainant’s disability.” In practical terms, HUD is signaling
that ESA documentation alone will no longer suffice absent evidence of training.
Requests to waive pet policies for trained assistance animals remain presumptively
reasonable, while requests involving untrained ESAs are not. The memorandum cites
Henderson v. Five Properties LLC, 2025 WL 1951763 (E.D. La. July 16, 2025), in which
the court rejected HUD’s 2020 guidance as “unpersuasive” and upheld the imposition of
an animal fee on an ESA owner.

Despite the attention this development has received, our guidance to property
managers remains unchanged: do not alter your accommodation procedures at this
time. This memorandum reflects a shift in HUD’s enforcement posture—not a change in
the law itself. Residents retain the ability to file private actions under the Fair Housing
Act (FHA) as written, and the memorandum does not affect Arizona’s fair housing laws
or how they may be enforced at the state level.

Importantly, the memorandum constitutes enforcement guidance, not a
regulatory amendment. The governing regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 100.204, remains in effect
pending any future rulemaking. In addition, substantial federal case law across multiple
jurisdictions continues to recognize reasonable accommodation protections for
untrained ESAs, and those decisions remain binding precedent. Tenants maintain a
private right of action in both federal and state court for up to two years following an
alleged discriminatory act, and the Arizona Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division
enforces parallel state law independently of HUD’s enforcement priorities. Plaintiffs’ fair
housing organizations are therefore likely to continue pursuing these claims.

We do not anticipate an immediate shift in enforcement practices by the Arizona
Attorney General, although formal guidance may be issued (this remains speculative). It
is possible that this development marks the beginning of a divergence between federal
and state enforcement approaches.

In summary, while the risk associated with HUD-initiated enforcement actions
may decrease, the exposure to private litigation and state-level enforcement remains
unchanged. Housing providers should continue to engage in the interactive process,
evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis, maintain thorough documentation, and
handle accommodation requests consistent with current practices.