The Case Against State Emotional Support Animal Documentation Laws

Authors

• Krista Wirth

Author Details

Krista Wirth, J.D. 2026, Vermont Law and Graduate School; chair of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice Subcommittee of the American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Animal Law Committee.

First Page

29

Abstract

Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a tenant with a service animal or emotional support animal (ESA) may request a reasonable accommodation from their housing provider to have their assistance animal live with them in housing that might not otherwise permit animals. In recent years, several states have implemented laws that aim to address “fraudulent” emotional support animals (“state ESA laws”). These laws limit the types of acceptable verifying documentation or place requirements on a healthcare provider’s ability to produce documentation to verify an individual’s disability and disability related need for a support animal—documentation an individual often needs to support their request for a reasonable accommodation. Five states have enacted “thirty-day” provisions, which place restrictions on the health care provider-client relationship by requiring that a provider and an individual have a relationship for a minimum of thirty days before the provider can provide verifying documentation. These provisions exacerbate access to care and housing issues for people with support animals by placing additional burdens on the provider-client relationship and reasonable accommodations process—notably, at a time when mental health services and affordable housing are difficult to access. This Comment analyzes recent and emerging trends in state ESA laws, particularly thirty-day provisions; the requirements to request a reasonable accommodation under federal housing law and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) past guidance; preemption and civil rights issues; and the need for new guidance from HUD. This Comment argues that state ESA laws are a problematic approach because they are inconsistent with federal housing law, increase barriers to housing for people with support animals, curtail fair housing rights, and increase liability for housing providers under the FHA. Accordingly, this Comment recommends that states repeal or align state ESA laws with the FHA and HUD’s previous guidance; codify protections for assistance animals under state housing laws; permissibly regulate commercial speech and require informational disclosures to address ESA-related misinformation and consumer protection issues; and expand access to animal-inclusive housing for all people to reduce the need for ESA accommodations in the first instance.

Recommended Citation

Krista Wirth, The Case Against State Emotional Support Animal Documentation Laws, 32 Animal L. Rev. 29 (2026).
Available at: https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/alr/vol32/iss1/3