From 2021 until September 2025, a Minnesota landlord holding a support-animal certificate bought off a website had two places to look for an answer. One was a federal guidance notice from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The other was a Minnesota statute passed in June 2021.
The federal one is gone. HUD withdrew it effective September 17, 2025, told everyone it “should not be relied upon as authoritative”, and took it off its website. 91 Fed. Reg. 17291, 17292 (Apr. 6, 2026).
The Minnesota statute is still on the books, and it says most of what the HUD notice used to say, in words a court has to follow. If you rent in Minnesota, landlord or tenant, § 504B.113 is the page you want.
What did HUD actually withdraw?
Two notices, both about animals. FHEO-2020-01, “Assessing a Person’s Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act”, issued January 28, 2020, and its 2013 predecessor, FHEO Notice 2013-01. Both are on a list of eight guidance documents HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity withdrew together. 91 Fed. Reg. at 17292.
HUD’s stated test was blunt. It would withdraw any guidance that failed one or more of three criteria: “(1) the guidance is statutorily prescribed, (2) the interpretation set forth is consistent with the relevant statute or regulation, and/or (3) the guidance decreases compliance burdens.” Id. The notice doesn’t say which test the animal guidance flunked.
Here’s what that guidance said about internet certificates, for the record:
Some websites sell certificates, registrations, and licensing documents for assistance animals to anyone who answers certain questions or participates in a short interview and pays a fee. … In HUD’s experience, such 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.
— HUD, FHEO-2020-01, at 11 (Jan. 28, 2020) (withdrawn)
That’s a line a landlord could hold up. Washington took it back. Go figure.
Now, what HUD didn’t withdraw: the law. The Fair Housing Act still makes it discrimination 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”. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). HUD’s own regulation still says the same thing, 24 C.F.R. § 100.204(a), and its very first example is a blind applicant, a seeing eye dog, and a building with a no-pets policy. Id. § 100.204(b), Example (1). The withdrawal notice itself says “[a]ny actions that do not comply with the text of the Fair Housing Act continue to be subject to enforcement by the Department”, and that nothing in it “affects the rights of parties to seek redress in the proper court.” 91 Fed. Reg. at 17292.
So the duty survived. The instruction manual didn’t.
Minnesota’s statute does what the manual did
The Legislature passed § 504B.113 in the 2021 special session. 2021 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 8, art. 2, § 10. It’s titled “Service and Support Animal Documentation”, and it covers both kinds of animal.
A “support animal” is one that “(1) provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability; and (2) does not need to be trained to perform a specific disability-related task.” § 504B.113, subd. 1(c). Note what’s missing: a species. The definition says “an animal”.
A “service animal” borrows the federal ADA definition, 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. § 504B.113, subd. 1(b). That one is narrow: “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability”. And the federal rule says outright that “the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks”. 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.
Here’s what that difference means for you.
| Service animal | Support animal | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks related to a disability | An animal that provides emotional support alleviating a symptom or effect of a disability; no training required |
| In your Minnesota rental | § 504B.113 applies; so does § 363A.09, subd. 5 | § 504B.113 applies |
| At the grocery store | The ADA rule’s definition governs | Not a service animal under the ADA rule |
I covered the public-accommodations side, stores and restaurants and clinics, at /news/minnesota-public-accommodations-363A11/. The short version for this article: the support animal’s rights are housing rights.
What paperwork can a Minnesota landlord demand?
Less than most landlords think, and more than most tenants hope.
A landlord “may require a tenant to provide supporting documentation for each service or support animal for which the tenant requests a reasonable accommodation under any provision of law.” § 504B.113, subd. 2(a). “Tenant” includes a prospective tenant. Id., subd. 1(d). But the very next sentence takes the request off the table in the easy cases:
A landlord must not require supporting documentation from a tenant if the tenant’s disability or disability-related need for a service or support animal is readily apparent or already known to the landlord.
— Minn. Stat. § 504B.113, subd. 2(a)
When documentation is fair game, here’s what the tenant owes and what the landlord can’t touch:
Upon a landlord’s request, the tenant must provide supporting documentation from a licensed professional confirming the tenant’s disability and the relationship between the tenant’s disability and the need for a service or support animal. A landlord must not require the tenant to disclose or provide access to medical records or medical providers or provide any other information or documentation of a person’s physical or mental disability.
— Minn. Stat. § 504B.113, subd. 2(b) (emphasis added)
So a letter, not a file. No chart, no records, no call to the provider.
The “disability” being confirmed is Minnesota’s definition, not the federal one. § 504B.113, subd. 1(g). The difference is one word. The Fair Housing Act covers an impairment that “substantially limits” a major life activity. 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)(1). The Minnesota Human Rights Act covers one that “materially limits” a major life activity, and adds an impairment “that is episodic or in remission and would materially limit a major life activity when active.” § 363A.03, subd. 12.
Is a website’s support-animal letter any good in Minnesota?
Usually not, and this is where Minnesota went further than HUD ever did. HUD gave an opinion. Minnesota wrote a definition.
The letter has to come from a “licensed professional”, and the statute lists who counts: anyone licensed by the Board of Medical Practice under chapter 147, physician assistants, licensed nurses, psychologists, mental health professionals licensed under chapter 148B, social workers, and licensed counselors. § 504B.113, subd. 1(e)(1)–(7). Then the kill shot:
A licensed professional does not include any person who operates primarily to provide certification for a service or support animal.
— Minn. Stat. § 504B.113, subd. 1(e)
A business whose product is the certificate is out by name. An out-of-state professional can still qualify, but only if he holds a valid license in another state and “has an existing treatment relationship with the tenant requesting a reasonable accommodation.” Id., subd. 1(e)(8).
Read clause (8) closely, because it’s narrower than it looks. The treatment-relationship requirement is written into the out-of-state clause. Clauses (1) through (7), the Minnesota licensees, don’t carry it. As I read the text, a Minnesota-licensed therapist who sees you over video can write a valid letter, as long as she isn’t a person who “operates primarily to provide certification”. Where telehealth ends and a certificate mill begins is going to be a fact question. I didn’t find a Minnesota appellate decision that’s drawn that line, or that’s applied § 504B.113 at all. I searched CourtListener three ways, plus the open web; CourtListener has real gaps for Minnesota and indexes no district court files.
Can my landlord charge a pet deposit for an emotional support animal?
Not once the animal is an accommodation. “A landlord must not require a tenant with a reasonable accommodation under this section to pay an additional fee, charge, or deposit for the service or support animal.” § 504B.113, subd. 3(a). No pet rent, no pet deposit, no pet fee.
The same paragraph keeps the tenant honest: “A tenant is liable to the landlord for any damage to the premises caused by the service or support animal.” Id. The ordinary security deposit still exists, and how a landlord may deduct from it, and when it has to explain itself, is its own statute. I walked through it at /news/minnesota-security-deposit-504b178/.
In 2024 the Legislature added a twist most tenants don’t know about. If a landlord charges pet fees, charges, or deposits under a pet policy, “the landlord must disclose in the lease the prohibition on additional fees, charges, or deposits for service or support animals under this section.” § 504B.113, subd. 3(b); 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 118, § 6. Skip the disclosure and a tenant who paid pet fees can sue to get them back, if the tenant shows he “would have requested a reasonable accommodation and would likely have received a reasonable accommodation had the landlord provided the disclosure”. § 504B.113, subd. 3(c). Pull out your lease and look for that sentence. A landlord who collected pet fees without that sentence in the lease is exposed to exactly that suit.
What happens to a tenant who fakes it?
This one surprised me. The answer is: the landlord can say no.
Subdivision 4 forbids a tenant to “knowingly” misrepresent himself “as a person with a disability that requires the use of a service or support animal”, or to “provide fraudulent supporting documentation under this section”, whether “directly or indirectly through statements or conduct”. § 504B.113, subd. 4. Subdivision 5 is headed “Penalty”, and here’s the whole of it:
If a tenant violates this section, the landlord may deny the tenant’s rental application or request for a service or support animal. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an eviction action based on a breach of the lease.
— Minn. Stat. § 504B.113, subd. 5
No fine. The section sets no penalty of its own and makes nothing a crime. The statute’s own remedy is a denial, and if the faking also breaches the lease, the landlord keeps whatever eviction remedy the lease breach supports. I covered how long that process takes at /news/minnesota-eviction-timeline-redemption/. Notice the word “knowingly”, too. A tenant who honestly relied on a letter that turns out not to qualify hasn’t violated subdivision 4 on the text. As I read it, the landlord can decline that letter, and the tenant’s fix is a letter that complies.
Big dogs, bad dogs, and the landlord’s insurance
Section 504B.113 says nothing about breed or size. The withdrawn HUD notice did. It said pet rules don’t apply to service and support animals, so housing providers “may not limit the breed or size of a dog used as a service animal or support animal just because of the size or breed” but could act on “specific issues with the animal’s conduct because it poses a direct threat or a fundamental alteration.” FHEO-2020-01, at 14. That’s no longer HUD’s word on anything.
What’s left is the statutes, and they put the line at a direct threat, not a breed. The Fair Housing Act doesn’t require a dwelling be made available to someone “whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). Minnesota’s Human Rights Act has the same carve-out, word for word on the key phrases. § 363A.10, subd. 4. Both duties also run only to accommodations that are reasonable and “may be necessary”. § 3604(f)(3)(B); § 363A.10, subd. 1(2).
So a landlord whose insurer excludes certain breeds has an argument that waiving the rule isn’t reasonable, and a tenant has an argument that a blanket breed ban isn’t a direct-threat finding about this dog. HUD used to referee that fight with a guidance notice. Now it goes to whoever hears the case, with the statute and nothing else. I didn’t find a Minnesota appellate decision on it.
If the dog does bite somebody, that’s a different statute with its own rules about who pays, and I covered it at /news/minnesota-dog-bite-statute/.
Where Minnesota’s housing-discrimination law fits
Section 504B.113 is a landlord-tenant statute. It tells the parties how the paperwork works. The duty to accommodate itself comes from the anti-discrimination laws, federal and state. On the state side, § 363A.10, subdivision 1(2), defines discrimination under the housing section to include “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when accommodations may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling”. And § 363A.09, subdivision 5, separately bars denying “full and equal access to real property” to “a person who has a disability and who uses a service animal.”
That last subdivision used to be much narrower. Until 2021 it covered only a person who was “totally or partially blind, deaf, or has a physical or sensory disability”, and only if the service animal could “be properly identified as being from a recognized program which trains service animals”. The same 2021 bill that created § 504B.113 struck both limits. 2021 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 8, art. 2, § 5.
The rest of Minnesota’s fair-housing statute, who’s covered and who’s exempt and what a claim pays, is at /news/minnesota-fair-housing-discrimination-363A09/. The application-fee rules for a prospective tenant are their own statute, and I covered them at /news/minnesota-tenant-screening-fee-504b-173/.
HUD can take a notice down in an afternoon. Minnesota’s version takes a vote.
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC handles civil rights litigation, including housing discrimination and fair housing claims, in Minnesota state and federal court, and advises Minnesota landlords and tenants on residential security deposits and deduction disputes. Read about our civil rights practice. If you’re a tenant who was refused an animal or charged for one, or a landlord trying to figure out what you’re allowed to ask, send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 504B.113, subd. 1(b) (service animal, by reference to 28 C.F.R. § 36.104), subd. 1(c) (support animal), subd. 1(d) (tenant includes prospective tenant), subd. 1(e)(1)–(8) (licensed professional; existing treatment relationship for out-of-state licensees; exclusion of persons operating primarily to provide certification), subd. 1(f) (reasonable accommodation), subd. 1(g) (disability, by reference to § 363A.03, subd. 12), subd. 2(a)–(b) (documentation; readily apparent or known; no medical records), subd. 3(a) (no additional fee, charge, or deposit; tenant liable for damage), subd. 3(b) (lease disclosure), subd. 3(c) (tenant’s action to recover), subd. 4 (prohibited conduct), subd. 5 (penalty); 2021 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 8, art. 2, § 5 (amending § 363A.09, subd. 5), § 10 (enacting § 504B.113); 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 118, § 6 (amending § 504B.113, subd. 3); Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 12 (disability); § 363A.09, subd. 5 (service animal access to real property); § 363A.10, subd. 1(2) (reasonable accommodations), subd. 4 (direct threat; substantial physical damage); 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)(1) (handicap); § 3604(f)(3)(B) (reasonable accommodations), (f)(9) (direct threat) (United States Code, 2024 ed., govinfo.gov); 24 C.F.R. § 100.204(a), (b) Example (1) (eCFR); 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 (definition of service animal) (eCFR); HUD, Notification of Withdrawal of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Guidance Documents, 91 Fed. Reg. 17291, 17291–92 (Apr. 6, 2026) (effective Sept. 17, 2025); HUD, FHEO 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), at 11, 14 (withdrawn). This article is general information about Minnesota law, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no outcome is promised or implied.