What Did FHEO-2020-01 Do? It covered both service animals and support animals (including those providing emotional support) and distinguished them from household “pets.” It allowed landlords and other housing providers to determine if a person had a disability-related need for the animal, and to ask for documentation confirming the disability and disability-related need if they were not obvious.[2]
Service Animals vs. Assistance Animals. Service animals are typically dogs individually trained to perform specific tasks for a physical disability—like guiding someone who's blind, alerting to seizures, or retrieving items for mobility issues. They are primarily regulated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). But the FHA covers them too. Note, that No-Pet policies do not apply. Assistance animals also include emotional support animals (“ESAs”) for comfort or to alleviate symptoms of a mental or emotional disability. Again, no specific training is required.
But note that housing providers/landlords are not required to provide any reasonable accommodation that would:
- Pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others (i.e., a significant risk – not a remote or speculative risk;
- Result in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by a reasonable accommodation;
- Pose an undue financial and administrative burden; or
- Fundamentally alter the nature of the provider’s operations.
(See Fair Housing Council link, here.)
If necessary, landlords may still request documentation to verify a tenant's disability-related need for an emotional support animal.
What Was The Result Of Withdrawing the 2020 Regulation? First, to be clear, the 2020 Regulation was merely HUD’s position regarding its “best practices" guidance. HUD’s rationale behind the 2025 withdrawal was that this level of verification went beyond the Fair Housing Act requirements and created compliance burdens for housing providers. (See, September 17, 2025 official Notice of the Withdrawal of FHEO Guidance Documents, link here.)
Is There Going To Be A “Regulatory Vacuum? For regulators or housing providers or both? Speaking as a trial attorney who represents landlords, regulatory ambiguity is not necessarily a bad thing. Remember, the plaintiff or regulator must prove the Fair Housing violation, i.e., it carries the burden of proof. For a housing provider, it can be easier to defend against the attempted enforcement of a rule with ambiguous text, than one with which is specific. Although this approach may not be true in all cases, my experience is that it is frequently easier to argue that the alleged conduct is not clearly proscribed, and therefore unenforceable.
Where Do We Go From Here? Quoting from the Portland Area Rental Owner’s Association[3] (“PAROA”):
That old notice spelled out pretty strict rules on what landlords could ask for in verification [for emotional support animals]. With it gone, we've got more breathing room to dig into questionable requests—think those sketchy online ESA letters that seem to pop up overnight. But here's the big caveat, and I can't stress this enough: the core Fair Housing Act (FHA) obligations are still very much in place. Oregon follows federal FHA rules closely, with no major state overrides for assistance animals in housing. We have to accommodate legitimate disability-related needs, or we risk expensive discrimination complaints. The goal? Say yes when it's appropriate and safely say no when it's justified — all with solid documentation to back us up. (Emphasis added.)
***
The old guidance [FHEO-2020-01] limited what we could ask, often making it tough to push back on dubious requests. Now, without those specific restrictions, we have more flexibility to request reliable documentation from a treating provider. Spotting fraud—like generic online certificates not linked to ongoing care—is easier to challenge.***
Although withdrawal of the 2020 Regulation is good news, its significance is more in what it does not say but implies; i.e., at least under the current Administration, enforcement will be undertaken only where necessary. As stated in its September 17, 2025, the Notice of Withdrawal, HUD (linked above) stated:
Where guidance is not per se unlawful, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity nonetheless determines that guidance should be withdrawn and that it should be reissued only if the guidance is necessary and only if it reduces compliance burdens. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity determines that the benefits of this policy outweigh the cost to any purported reliance interests. (Emphasis added.)
Not A Bad Year; Disparate Impact Gone too! As far as Fair Housing regulations, 2025 was a pretty good year for landlords. Not only was the 2020 Regulation withdrawn, but on April 23, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14281 (EO 14281), entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” The express purpose of the Executive Order was “to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.”
On December 9, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) eliminated disparate-impact liability from its Title VI regulations, effective immediately.[4] Until recently, regulators could argue that even if they were unable to prove intent to discriminate, they could argue a housing provider’s practice disproportionately excluded or harmed a certain protected class.
This effect of EO 14281 and changes to Title VI regulations now require proof of intentional discrimination rather than just disproportionate outcomes. On January 14, 2026, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed a rule to rescind its fair housing disparate impact regulations, leaving such questions for the courts to decide rather than agency regulation.[5]
But note that Oregon statutes, ORS 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited) and 659A.421 (Discrimination in selling, renting or leasing real property prohibited) still contain disparate impact language. Given HUD’s directives, one has to wonder when the Bureau of Labor and Industries (“BOLI”), the primary enforcer of fair housing violations in Oregon, will announce its abandonment of those claims. Their website is curiously silent on the issue. ~Phil
[1] “Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.”
[2] It excluded medical records and other forms documentation.
[3] This site contains a good practical summary of steps to take in dealing with accommodation requests.
[4] Note: The change does not directly affect disparate impact claims under Title VII (employment) or other statutes.
[5] However, this is where landlords must be careful. They should not make blanket prohibitions, especially against applicants with a criminal background. See, ORS 90.303 (Evaluation of Applicant). According to the Fair Housing Council, landlords “…must evaluate each case individually. When reviewing a criminal history, consider the following: The nature and severity of the criminal conduct; the time that has elapsed since the conviction or incident; the applicant’s age at the time of the conduct; ant the applicant’s efforts at rehabilitation.”
