HUD's Legal Conflict with FHA Rules on Services Animals.

By Matt Murdock, Esq.

Attorney at Law

October 22, 2025

You can feel the shift in the air before you see it. It’s a change in barometric pressure. A drop in temperature. In my line of work, in my city, you learn to sense the prelude to the storm. It’s the sound of a lock clicking quietly in a backroom, a decision made in a sterile Washington D.C. office that will echo as a door slamming shut in a tenement near The Cotton Club.

That’s what this is.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has pulled its guidance on assistance animals. Specifically, they’ve "withdrawn" Notice FHEO-2020-01, a document that, for a few short years, provided something resembling a clear set of rules for tenants with disabilities and the landlords who house them.

The official line, whispered by advocacy groups like The Seeing Eye, is that this is a procedural cleanup. They'll tell you, "The law hasn't changed."

They’re right, and they’re wrong.

They’re right that the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the bedrock of anti-discrimination law in housing, remains on the books. Its text is untouched. But to say the law hasn't changed is to miss the point with a blindness that is, frankly, insulting. The law isn't just the words in a statute; it’s the access to those words. It's the map that tells you where the courthouse is, the key that opens the door.

HUD just burned the map.

They did it quietly. No fanfare, no press conference. Just a broken link on a government website. This is the classic systemic shell game. It’s the poll tax. It’s the literacy test. It's the "discretion" of the gatekeeper. You create a right, then you make the path to claim that right so confusing, so expensive, and so riddled with traps that only the powerful and the privileged, or the clients of a stubborn lawyer from The Cotton Club, can navigate it.

This withdrawal is not an act of "deregulation." It is a deliberate act of obfuscation. It is a political decision designed to shift power from the vulnerable to the propertied. It creates chaos, and in chaos, the big guy always wins. It's a "tell," the nervous flicker of a liar's heartbeat. The system is telling us exactly who it intends to protect, and it isn't the veteran with PTSD, the woman with agoraphobia, or the child with sensory processing disorder.

This analysis is not just an academic exercise. It is a field guide to the new fight. The foundational statutes are our weapons. The case law provides the scars to prove what works. And the new uncertainty... well, that’s the darkness we have to navigate. For my clients, "justice" isn't an abstract concept. It's a roof. It's a companion that keeps the nightmares at bay. It's the simple, profound right to exist in their own homes.

And we will fight for it, guidance or no guidance. This paper will dissect the legal framework that remains, analyze the map they just destroyed, hear the stories told by the case law, and lay out a practical, street-level strategy for the fight ahead.

Service Dogs Vs Support Animals

I. The Unchanged Bedrock: The Three Pillars of Housing Protection

They took the roadmap, but they haven't dynamited the bedrock. Yet. The "law" that The Seeing Eye correctly notes remains unchanged is a tripartite framework. It's a braid of three different statutes that, together, create a powerful shield. But you have to know which shield to hold up. Landlords love to quote the weakest one. We must be smarter.

A. The Sanctuary: The Fair Housing Act (FHA)

This is the big one. This is the sanctuary. The Fair Gousing Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., is the primary authority, and its command is broad. The key provision, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), makes it unlawful:

"to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."

Let's break that down, because every word is a battlefield.

"Reasonable Accommodation": This is the legal tool. It’s a request to bend a rule. The most common rule in this fight? The "no-pet" policy. A request for an assistance animal is a request for a reasonable accommodation. It's not a request for a "pet"; it's a request for a medical aid, no different than a request for a wheelchair ramp or a flashing-light doorbell.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines "reasonable accommodation" as: "A reasonable adjustment to an employer's rules or policies (or a landlord's rules or policies) to enable a person with a disability to enjoy equal opportunity." Black’s Law Dictionary 19 (11th ed. 2019). The key is reasonableness, a standard that FHEO-2020-01 helped define, and which is now left to the winds of litigation.

"Disability": The FHA’s definition is massive. It’s not a short list of "approved" conditions. It is, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h), "(1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (2) a record of having such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment." This covers everything from blindness and mobility impairments to PTSD, severe depression, and anxiety. This is what the 2020 guidance helped protect: the non-obvious disability.

"Assistance Animal": Notice the word. The FHA does not use the term "service animal." It uses "assistance animal." This is a much broader category. It includes (1) service animals (like a guide dog) and (2) support animals (often called "emotional support animals" or ESAs). This is the single most important distinction. An assistance animal is not limited to a dog. It is not required to be trained to perform a specific task (though it must provide some disability-related support or work). It can be a cat that provides calming companionship to a person with crippling anxiety, or another animal that provides therapeutic benefit.

The FHA applies to almost all housing, public and private, with very few, very narrow exceptions. This is the law that protects a tenant in a private apartment complex, a condo, or a single-family rental.

B. The Business Suit: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

This is the one the landlords carry in their back pocket. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically Title II (public entities, 28 C.F.R. Part 35) and Title III (public accommodations, 28 C.F.R. Part 36), is a critical civil rights law. But in the housing context, it's often a red herring.

The ADA’s definition of a "service animal" is famously, and intentionally, narrow. Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 and § 36.104, a service animal is:

"any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability..."

The regulations go on to allow for a miniature horse in some circumstances, but the key is "dog" and "individually trained." This definition excludes emotional support animals.

Here is the trap: A landlord, or their lazy lawyer, will tell a tenant, "Your cat is not a 'service animal' under the ADA, so I don't have to allow it."

This is a lie. It's an intentional, cynical misreading of the law.

The ADA applies to the public parts of a housing complex (the leasing office, the public pool) and to some government-run housing (like a university dorm or a public housing authority's offices). But it does not limit or supersede the Fair Housing Act. The FHA is the law for the dwelling unit itself.

This is a critical distinction. The withdrawal of FHEO-2020-01, which explicitly explained this difference, is an open invitation for bad-faith landlords to sow this exact confusion. They will wave the ADA in a tenant's face, counting on the fact that the tenant doesn't know the FHA is the stronger shield.

C. The Money Trail: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

The third pillar is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, found at 29 U.S.C. § 794. This one is simple: Follow the money.

Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

This is the law that applies to public housing authorities, Section 8 voucher programs, HOME-funded properties, and many LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) properties that are layered with other federal funds.

Like the FHA, Section 504 uses the broader "assistance animal" standard, not the narrow ADA "service animal" definition. It requires reasonable accommodations. For tenants in federally-subsidized housing, this provides a second, powerful claim, often one with a direct line to HUD's enforcement arm (or what's left of it). The implementing regulations, such as 24 C.F.R. § 5.303, specifically define and protect assistance animals in this context. These regulations, for now, remain.

II. The Map They Burned: Deconstructing Notice FHEO-2020-01

I can still feel the texture of this document. Nineteen pages. It was dense, bureaucratic, but it was clear. Notice FHEO-2020-01, "Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act," was a flashlight in a dark room. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a tool. It gave tenants a script and landlords a shield.

Burning this map wasn't about "efficiency." It was about extinguishing the light. Let's look at exactly what they took from us.

A. The Two-Part Test: A Glimmer of Common Sense

The guidance created a simple, logical framework for a housing provider to use when they got a request. It was a flowchart designed to stop them from asking stupid, and illegal, questions.

Part 1: The Obvious Cases. The guidance started by effectively incorporating the ADA. Is the animal a dog that is obviously a service animal (like a guide dog for a blind person)? If yes, stop. You're done. You can only ask two questions: (1) "Is the animal a service animal required because of a disability?" and (2) "What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?" You cannot ask for documentation. You cannot ask about the person's disability.

This was a critical protection. It saved people like me, or, my clients, the indignity of having to "prove" our blindness to a building manager. I can hear the skepticism in a landlord's voice when they want to see "the papers" for a dog in a harness. The guidance told them, in no uncertain terms, to stand down. Now, that clear command is gone.

Part 2: The Non-Obvious Cases (Support Animals). If the animal wasn't a "service animal" (i.e., it was an ESA, or a cat, or a dog not task-trained), the provider could move to the FHA analysis. This is where the guidance shined. It said a provider could only ask for documentation if the disability or the disability-related need for the animal was not obvious.

If the disability was not obvious (e.g., PTSD, anxiety, chronic pain), the provider could request reliable documentation that: The person has a disability (a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity), and the person has a disability-related need for the animal (i.e., the animal provides work, performs tasks, or provides therapeutic emotional support that alleviates one or more symptoms of the disability).

This was the entire ballgame. It gave providers a clear path, and it gave tenants a clear set of lines that could not be crossed.

B. The Sound of Truth vs. The "Certification" Lie

The most powerful part of the 2020 guidance was its detailed instruction on documentation. This is where the street-level fight always happens.

What Was Reliable? The guidance said documentation from a licensed health care professional (doctor, therapist, psychiatrist, social worker) was reliable. It gave the tenant cover and the landlord assurance.

What Was Not Reliable? The guidance explicitly and publicly called out the online paper mills. It stated that "documentation from the Internet is not, by itself, sufficient to reliably establish that an individual has a non-observable disability or disability-related need for an assistance animal."

This was a gift to legitimate tenants and honest landlords. It helped filter the frauds. It protected the person who spent years with a therapist to get a legitimate ESA letter from being lumped in with the person who paid $75 online for a fake "registry" card and a plastic vest.

By withdrawing this guidance, HUD has just re-opened the floodgates. They have given the online scammers a new lease on life and given landlords a new excuse to be suspicious of everyone. The water is muddy again. And who benefits from muddy water? Not the person gasping for air.

What They Couldn't Ask For. This was the shield. The guidance flat-out prohibited landlords from demanding: A specific diagnosis. Detailed medical records. Notarized forms. That the tenant use a specific form. That the health care provider use a specific script.

This was the firewall. It protected a tenant's privacy. It stopped the landlord from playing doctor and "evaluating" the tenant's medical history. Now? The firewall is down. The guidance is gone. Landlords will start asking for this again. I can already hear the printer spitting out the intrusive, illegal forms.

C. The Interactive Process: The "Sit-Down"

The law talks about an "interactive process." This is a legal term of art, often used in the employment context, but it applies here. It means the two sides have to talk to each other in good faith to find a solution. You can't just send a form denial and hide in your office.

FHEO-2020-01 put teeth into this. It encouraged a "good-faith dialogue." More importantly, it set a timeline. It stated that a provider should make a determination within 10 days of receiving documentation.

Ten days.

I can feel the clock. For a person facing eviction, or a person unable to move into a new apartment, ten days is an eternity. But it’s something. It's a deadline. It's a date you can circle on a calendar. It's a point at which you can say, "You have violated the guidance, and now I'm calling my lawyer."

Now, that clock is silent. The "interactive process" is once again an indefinite, formless void where a landlord can stall, and delay, and "review" a request to death. And, as we will see, a delay is a denial.

III. The System's Tell: The Meaning of the Withdrawal

The Seeing Eye's statement, while legally correct, misses the street-level reality. It’s the statement of an organization that has to play nice. I don't.

Not having this guidance is a catastrophe for lawyers and advocates, yes. But it is a disaster for the unrepresented. It is a fundamental shift in the balance of power.

For Housing Providers: They are now flying blind in a storm, and their lawyers will advise them to be maximally cautious. For some, that will mean (smartly) just granting legitimate requests. For most, it will mean over-inquiry. They will ask for more documentation, not less, fearing "fraud." They will deny more, fearing "liability." They are now more likely to violate the FHA, not less.

For People with Disabilities: The burden is now entirely on us. We have to be the experts. We have to print out the statutes. We have to cite the case law. We have to know the difference between the FHA and the ADA and be able to explain it to a high-school-educated leasing agent who has been told to "crack down on fake ESAs." This is an impossible burden for many.

The Disparate Impact: Let's call this what it is. This is a targeted attack on people with non-obvious disabilities. This is a withdrawal of the one document that gave clear, mainstream legitimacy to the needs of people with psychiatric and mental impairments. The man with the guide dog? He'll face more hassle, but he'll probably be okay. The veteran with PTSD whose dog is trained to wake him from night terrors? His life just got infinitely harder. This will disproportionately harm people of color and low-income individuals, who are more likely to be renters, more likely to have disabilities, and less likely to have access to the legal and medical professionals needed to build the "perfect" paper trail.

This is the "Lawful Governance" of Executive Order 14219. This is the "Department of Government Efficiency." It is efficient at one thing: crushing the rights of those with the least power to fight back.

IV. The Scars of the Fight: Lessons from Case Law

When the map is gone, you follow the old trails. You look for the places where others have walked, where they fought, and where they won. The case law is our new map. It's written in the blood and treasure of the litigants who came before. The 2020 guidance didn't invent these rules; it distilled them from these cases. Now, we must cite the cases themselves.

A. Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights: Death by a Thousand Papercuts

This is the big one. Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Ass’n, 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2014). I can hear the paper trail in this case. It's the sound of a bureaucracy trying to kill a man's hope with procedure.

The Facts: Ajit Bhogaita, an Air Force veteran with PTSD, needed an emotional support dog, "Kano." The dog helped him. But Kano was over the condo's 25-pound weight limit. A classic "no-pet" policy variant.

The "Interactive Process" (The Stall): Bhogaita did everything right. He requested an accommodation. He provided a letter from his psychiatrist. The Association's response? They stalled. They demanded more. They sent him a 10-page "Supplemental Application" demanding his entire medical history, a list of all his medications, and a "detailed statement" of how the dog helped him. When his psychiatrist sent another letter, they demanded more information. This went on for months.

The "Heartbeat" of the Case: This is the sound of a system weaponizing "process." It wasn't a "no." It was a "maybe... if." It was an indeterminate delay. It was a shifting of the goalposts. They were counting on him to give up. He didn't.

The Holding: "Constructive Denial": The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals saw right through it. They held that the Association's actions constituted a "constructive denial" of his request. This is a critical legal concept. A "denial" doesn't have to be a letter that says "No." A denial can be: Indeterminate delays. Escalating requests for information you already have. Demanding information you are not entitled to receive (like detailed medical records).

The Significance: The court ruled that the moment the Association had enough information to know Bhogaita was disabled and the dog was related to that disability, their "review" should have ended and the accommodation granted. FHEO-2020-01 codified this holding. It told landlords exactly what they could ask for, and it told them to do it in 10 days. By withdrawing the guidance, HUD is inviting every landlord in America to play the Bhogaita stall tactics, forcing tenants to re-litigate this case, district by district, over and over again. The price tag for the Association? $5,000 in damages... and over $100,000 in attorneys' fees. That's the punchline.

B. Green v. Housing Authority: The "Pet Deposit" Racket

This is a foundational case. Green v. Housing Authority of Clackamas Cnty., 994 F. Supp. 1253 (D. Or. 1998).

The Facts: A simple, petty shakedown. A deaf tenant needed a hearing-assistance dog. The Housing Authority said, "Fine. Pay the $50 pet deposit."

The Holding: The court slapped this down, hard. An assistance animal is not a pet. It is an "auxiliary aid," a "medical appliance," a "reasonable accommodation." You cannot charge a deposit for a wheelchair. You cannot charge a fee for a hearing aid. You cannot charge a fee or deposit for an assistance animal. A landlord can charge for actual damage the animal does, but they cannot charge a pre-emptive deposit.

The Significance: This is about economics. That $50 deposit is the barrier. It's the poll tax. The 2020 guidance explicitly reiterated this rule. Removing the guidance is a green light for landlords to try this racket again, knowing the tenant's only recourse is a federal lawsuit over 50 bucks. It's a disgusting, cynical gamble.

C. Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp.: The "No-Pet" Fallacy

This case addresses the core fallacy. Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2000).

The Facts: A tenant with a "severe mental health disability" needed two birds and a cat for emotional support. The landlord had a rigid "no-pet" policy and argued the FHA only protected "service animals" (i.e., trained guide dogs).

The Holding: The court rejected the landlord's argument completely. It held that the FHA's broad language requires an individualized assessment and that the term "assistance animal" (which they called "support animals") is not limited to trained service animals. A "no-pet" policy is irrelevant to a reasonable accommodation request.

The Significance: This case established that the FHA requires landlords to consider ESAs. It is the legal basis for why the FHA is broader than the ADA. The 2020 guidance built its entire "Part 2" framework on this foundation.

D. Anderson v. City of Blue Ash: The "Miniature Horse" Case

This one always makes the news. Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2015).

The Facts: A family needed a miniature horse as an assistance animal for their daughter, who had a severe disability. The city's zoning ordinance banned "farm animals."

The Holding: The Sixth Circuit took the request seriously. They didn't laugh. They applied the FHA. They recognized that the ADA regulations already contemplated miniature horses as an alternative to dogs for service animals (e.g., for those with allergies or for tasks requiring more stability). They sent the case back down to be evaluated on its individual merits, not dismissed by a blanket "no horses" rule.

The Significance: This case is the ultimate bulwark against blanket policies. It forces the "individualized assessment" that the 2020 guidance mandated. It underscores that "reasonableness" is a flexible, fact-specific inquiry. By withdrawing the guidance, HUD is encouraging a return to rigid, one-size-fits-all policies that are, themselves, illegal.

V. The Lay of the Land: What's Left Standing

So the map is burned. What's left? The territory itself. The foundation remains. We must navigate by an older set of stars.

The Statutes (The Steel Frame): The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. § 794) are unchanged. Their text is the ultimate authority.

The Regulations (The Fine Print): The Code of Federal Regulations is still in force. 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 (Reasonable Accommodations under FHA) and 24 C.F.R. § 5.303 (Assistance Animals in HUD-funded programs) are still the law. These regulations require the accommodation.

The Old Map (The 2004 Joint Statement): This is a key tool. The Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice on Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004) is still valid. It has not been withdrawn. It is older, more general, and less detailed than the 2020 guidance, but it is still authoritative guidance from the agencies. Crucially, courts have relied on it. The Bhogaita court cited the 2004 Joint Statement. It has judicial weight. This is now our primary "guidance" document.

The Case Law (The Scars): As outlined above, Bhogaita, Green, Janush, and their progeny are now the entire roadmap.

The fight just got harder. It got more expensive. It requires more expertise. Which, of course, was the entire point.

VI. The Smoke-Filled Room: The Administrative Context

You don't pull a load-bearing pin from a structure unless you want it to get weaker. This wasn't an isolated act. It’s a pattern. I can hear the hum of the shredders, the quiet 'delete' key.

This action is a direct result of the "deregulatory initiative" outlined in Executive Order 14219 (Feb. 19, 2025). This E.O. demands agencies identify and rescind "subregulatory guidance" and eliminate ten old rules for every new one. This is a quota system for cruelty. It's a blueprint for dismantling the administrative state, not to "streamline" it, but to weaken its ability to protect citizens.

This move is a cornerstone of the Project 2025 playbook, which explicitly called for a review of all "subregulatory guidance that has been instituted outside of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)." They are using the APA—a law designed to ensure public process—as a weapon to destroy protections without a public process. It's a perversion of the law.

And it’s not just HUD. The Department of Justice (DOJ) did the same thing on March 19, 2025, withdrawing 11 pieces of ADA guidance. The pattern is unmistakable: Create maximum confusion about civil rights enforcement.

This isn't about "good government." It's about disabling the government's power to enforce the Fair Housing Act and the ADA. It's a signal to the housing industry that the federal watchdogs are being chained. It’s a retreat from civil rights.

VII. The Fallout: The Real-World Price

The implications are not theoretical. They are immediate.

The "Geographic Lottery." I love that phrase because it’s true. A tenant's rights will now depend entirely on their zip code. Are they in a state like New York or California with strong state-level protections and well-funded fair housing centers? Or are they in a jurisdiction with weak state laws and no local enforcement, where the FHA is the only shield?

The Burden Shift. The burden of proof, the burden of cost, and the burden of knowledge have been shifted entirely onto the shoulders of the most vulnerable. It’s a "Lawyer Up" mandate.

The Chilling Effect. How many tenants will simply... not ask? How many will hear from a landlord, "That guidance was withdrawn, you have no rights," and believe it? How many will get a 10-page, Bhogaita-style demand for their medical records and just... give up the animal? Or their apartment? This is the true goal. Not to win the lawsuit, but to prevent the request from ever being made. It's a victory by intimidation.

VIII. Practical Guidance: A Puncher's Guide to the Fight Ahead

This is the part that matters. This is the "what now." You don't whine about the dark. You learn to fight in it.

A. For Individuals with Disabilities (My Clients)

This is what you do. You do it now.

Get Your Paper. Do not wait until you have a problem. Go to your real doctor, your real therapist, your real social worker. Get a letter.

The "Magic Language." That letter must not be a "certification" from a website. It must be on your provider's letterhead, and it must contain three simple facts. It should state, in substance: "I am treating [Your Name] for a disability (as defined by the FHA/Section 504)." (It must not name the disability. No diagnosis.) "This disability substantially limits one or more major life activities." (It can name the activity, e.g., "sleeping," "social interaction," "leaving the home.") "In my professional opinion, to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling, [Your Name] has a disability-related need for an assistance animal. This animal provides support [or performs work/tasks] that alleviates one or more symptoms or effects of the disability."

Make the Request in Writing. Use the words "Reasonable Accommodation under the Fair Housing Act." Send it via certified mail or email, so you have a receipt. Keep a copy.

Create a Paper Trail. Document every interaction. If the manager calls you, send a follow-up email: "Dear Manager, to confirm our phone call today..." This is your evidence.

Do Not Give Them Your Medical File. If they ask for your diagnosis or your medical records, you politely and firmly decline. Your response is: "My provider has already confirmed my disability and my need for the animal. The Fair Housing Act does not entitle you to my private medical history or diagnosis."

If They Stall, Set a Deadline. If 10-14 days pass, write again. "I have not received a determination on my reasonable accommodation request of [Date]. A failure to provide a timely determination can be considered a 'constructive denial' under the Fair Housing Act. See Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights. Please provide a written determination by [Date, 2-3 days out]."

If Denied, File a Complaint. File with HUD (www.hud.gov/fairhousing). File with your state human rights division. File with your local fair housing center. And then... you call someone like me.

B. For Housing Providers (The "Adversary")

I'll give you legal advice, even if you're on the other side. It might save us all time.

You Are Still Liable. The FHA has not changed. Bhogaita has not changed. The penalties have not changed. Withdrawing this guidance did not help you. It exposed you. The 2020 guidance was your shield against FHA violations. Now you're acting without a net.

Your Best Practice is to Pretend the Guidance Still Exists. Seriously. It was a perfect summary of your obligations under the case law.

Train Your Staff. Your leasing agent who thinks ESAs are "fake" is your biggest liability. Train them. Now.

Have a Clear, Written Policy. Have a reasonable accommodation policy and follow it. Use the 10-day timeline.

Do Not Ask for a Diagnosis. You will lose in court.

Do Not Use "Online Certification" as an Excuse. Do not reject a request because they have one, and do not demand one. They are irrelevant. Focus on the letter from the health care provider.

Engage in the Interactive Process. If you have a legitimate concern (e.g., the animal is a direct threat), talk to the tenant. Document the conversation. Try to find a solution. Don't just send a denial.

Consult Your Lawyer. And if your lawyer tells you to fight a legitimate request from a tenant with a real letter, get a new lawyer. Because my fees are going to be on your bill.

C. For Advocates and Attorneys (My Colleagues)

We have work to do.

Cite the Foundation. Every letter, every complaint, every pleading now cites directly to 42 U.S.C. § 3604, 24 C.F.R. § 100.204, and the 2004 HUD/DOJ Joint Statement.

Cite the Case Law. Bhogaita, Janush, and Green are now our primary texts. We must educate judges and opposing counsel on these cases, as they may have just been relying on the HUD guidance.

Argue Constructive Denial. The "stall" is the new "no." We must be aggressive on timelines.

Lean on State and Local Law. This is the moment for the New York City Human Rights Law (N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 12955), and the Massachusetts Fair Housing Law (M.G.L. c. 151B). These laws are often stronger and have their own guidance that has not been withdrawn. The fight moves to the local front.

Litigate. The only way to fix the ambiguity they've created is to build a new, stronger, more robust body of case law. We must sue. We must win. And we must get attorneys' fees. That is the only language this system understands.

IX. Conclusion: The Law in the Dark

In a city of 10 million heartbeats, the loss of one 19-page "subregulatory guidance document" sounds like silence. It’s a non-event. But I can hear the echo. I hear the sound of a veteran's heart racing as he reads a new, intrusive form. I hear the sound of a pen scratching a denial. I hear the quiet click of a door closing, another person shut out.

The administration has made a calculated bet. They have bet that by making the law more confusing, fewer people will use it. They have bet that by shifting the burden, the vulnerable will collapse under the weight.

They are betting on our despair.

My job is to be the house that bets against them.

The law has not changed. The Fair Housing Act is still our shield. The courts are still our battlefield. The work is harder. The path is darker. But the law is still there, a weapon waiting in the dark. We just have to be willing to pick it up and fight.

APPENDIX: KEY LEGAL AUTHORITIES

Federal Statutes

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (Specifically § 3604(f)(3)(B)).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

Federal Regulations

FHA Implementing Regulations: 24 C.F.R. Part 100 (Specifically § 100.204).

HUD Program Regulations (Assistance Animals): 24 C.F.R. § 5.303.

ADA Title II Regulations: 28 C.F.R. Part 35 (Specifically § 35.104).

ADA Title III Regulations: 28 C.F.R. Part 36 (Specifically § 36.104).

Key Guidance Documents

Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004). (Available at Link to the 2004 HUD/DOJ Joint Statement).

Withdrawn: HUD Notice FHEO-2020-01, Assessing a Person’s Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act (Jan. 28, 2020).

Leading Cases

Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2015).

Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass’n, 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2014).

Bronk v. Ineichen, 54 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 1995).

Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (D.C. 2005).

Green v. Hous. Auth. of Clackamas Cnty., 994 F. Supp. 1253 (D. Or. 1998).

Janush v. Charities Hous. Dev. Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2000).

This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The law is a living, breathing thing. It changes. This document reflects the legal landscape as of October 2025.