How HUD's 2026 Enforcement Guidance Changes the Way Therapists Should Think About ESA Letters
In 2020 HUD released a very large document (that I have gone over in detail in my trainings) to assist landlords in determining if an ESA is a reasonable accommodation. In light of that document, if you've written Emotional Support Animal (ESA) letters over the past several years, you've probably focused on two questions:
Does my client have a disability?
Does the animal help alleviate symptoms of that disability?
Historically, those were the primary clinical questions many therapists were taught to answer due to the guidelines that HUD put out in 2020. Yet, recent changes have been coming out from HUD, more specifically on May 22nd, 20206, that shifts expectations around the letters and if an ESA is a reasonable accommodation.
Before you panic, the Fair Housing Act has not changed. People with disabilities can still request reasonable accommodations, and therapists may still recommend Emotional Support Animals when clinically appropriate. What has changed is how HUD says it will evaluate and prioritize enforcement of these cases and how ESAs are categorized by HUD.
For clinicians, that means it's time to rethink how we write ESA documentation.
The legal question has always been whether a requested accommodation is necessary to allow a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing. In the 2020 guidelines, landlords were given specific guidelines on what to look for and questions to ask. Now, under the new May 2026 Referendum HUD's new guidance places much greater emphasis on if it actually is helping the disability and allowing the person to enjoy the dwelling in the same manner as a non-disabled person. Nearly every pet owner can honestly say:
"My dog lowers my stress."
"My cat helps my anxiety."
"I feel calmer when my animal is around."
Those statements may all be true. But under the Fair Housing Act, feeling better is not the legal standard and with the new push from HUD there will be more emphasis on this, and challenging landlords if they deny ESA letters or make the client pay a pet fee is something that could be a thing of the past.
Instead of asking only:
"Does this animal help?"
Housing providers, and increasingly courts, may ask:
Why is this accommodation necessary?
How does this animal reduce functional impairment?
Why is this accommodation required for equal housing opportunity?
Is there evidence connecting the disability to the requested accommodation?
Those are very different questions.
HUD explains that it is changing course because previous guidance led to confusion and inconsistent enforcement.
The memorandum states:
"Requests to waive pet policies for untrained ESAs are not [presumptively reasonable]. FHEO no longer expects housing providers to categorically extend accommodations for trained assistance animals to untrained ESAs."
That sentence is one of the most important in the entire memorandum.
It does not mean Emotional Support Animals are prohibited. It does mean HUD is no longer approaching every ESA request as though it automatically qualifies as a reasonable accommodation.
Instead, requests involving untrained emotional support animals are expected to receive a more individualized analysis.
HUD's memorandum repeatedly references the federal case Henderson v. Five Properties LLC.
Many people have summarized the case as "the tenant lost because the animal wasn't a service dog."
That isn't what happened. The court accepted that the plaintiff had a disability. The court accepted that her dog provided emotional support.
The apartment even allowed her to keep the dog. The dispute involved one specific accommodation:
Should the apartment waive its $400 pet fee?
The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that waiving the fee was necessary.
That happened because the landlord offered a payment plan that would still allow her to have the dog. The court explained that the requested accommodation must be essential, not merely preferable. It noted that an accommodation is necessary only when it is "indispensable," "essential," or "absolutely required" for equal housing opportunity.
This is an important lesson for therapists. The question isn't simply:
"Does the animal reduce symptoms?" The question becomes:
"Is this specific housing accommodation necessary because of the person's disability?" Those are not the same thing.
As therapists, we often think in terms of symptom reduction.
The law, however, focuses on functional impairment and equal access.For example:
"Helpful"
"My client experiences less anxiety when their cat is nearby."
That may be clinically accurate. But standing alone, it says little about why a housing accommodation is necessary.
"Necessary"
"My client experiences panic attacks that significantly impair independent functioning. The presence of the animal interrupts escalating symptoms, assists the client in regaining emotional regulation, and allows them to safely remain in their residence without repeated psychiatric crises."
Notice the difference how one describes comfort verses the that other describes disability-related functioning. Granted, therapists are not expected to provide legal opinions. Our role is to provide accurate clinical information.
However, our documentation should answer the clinical questions that are relevant to a housing accommodation request. Rather than writing:
"My client benefits from an emotional support animal."
Consider documenting:
What disability related symptoms are present?
How do those symptoms impair daily functioning?
How does the animal mitigate those symptoms?
Why is the accommodation clinically indicated?
Is there a clear relationship between the disability and the requested accommodation?
Those are clinical opinions, not legal conclusions.
HUD is openly critical of online ESA certification companies.
The memorandum states:
"An entire industry has emerged to convert pets into emotional support animals."
As mental health professionals, we should distinguish ourselves from these services. A defensible ESA evaluation should include:
a comprehensive clinical assessment;
an established therapeutic relationship (when possible and consistent with your licensing board's standards);
functional assessment rather than diagnosis alone;
individualized clinical reasoning; and
documentation tailored to the client's circumstances, not a generic template.
If your letter could be used for any client with anxiety after changing only the name, it probably isn't individualized enough.
HUD also announced that it intends to begin formal rulemaking to better align Fair Housing Act animal accommodations with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That process will likely take time.
Until then, therapists should expect greater scrutiny of ESA documentation and should prepare letters that reflect careful clinical reasoning rather than conclusory statements.
Final Thoughts
For years, many clinicians believed an ESA letter simply needed to answer one question:
"Does the animal help?"
HUD's new enforcement guidance suggests that question is no longer sufficient. Instead, therapists should be asking:
What functional limitations exist?
How does this animal mitigate those limitations?
Why is this accommodation necessary for equal access to housing?
This also means there is no guarantee clients will be able to not have a pet fee.
Those questions lead to stronger clinical documentation, more ethically defensible recommendations, and ultimately better advocacy for clients who genuinely need disability-related accommodations.
