The distinction that matters, and it is not subtle

This is a memorandum about HUD's own enforcement discretion. It is not a rule. It did not go through notice and comment. It does not amend the Fair Housing Act. And it binds:

• not a federal court hearing a private FHA claim;
• not a private plaintiff, who does not need HUD to sue;
• not Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act;
• not Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, which the Michigan Department of Civil Rights enforces independently of HUD.

A Michigan association that reads this memo as permission to start denying support-animal requests is taking a real and asymmetric risk. The federal enforcement threat has receded. The private-suit exposure and the state-law exposure have not moved at all.

The defensible reading

HUD will no longer bring the case for an untrained animal. That is not the same as: the accommodation is unlawful to grant, or safe to deny.

For a Michigan board, the practical consequences of that distinction:

• An existing accommodation should not be revoked on the strength of this memo. Withdrawing an accommodation an owner has relied on is a worse fact pattern in a private suit than never having granted it.
• The individualised assessment still applies. Michigan law requires the association to consider whether the requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary because of a disability. That analysis has not changed.
• Document the process, not the conclusion. What protects an association in a disability claim is a record showing it engaged with the request, asked only permitted questions, and gave reasons. That is unaffected by which agency will charge.
• Get advice before changing a written policy. An association that amends its pet rules to track the federal memo has created a document a plaintiff will read to the court alongside the state statutes the memo does not touch.

Michigan's own position

Michigan has no state statute specific to assistance animals in community associations, and no 2024–2026 Michigan appellate decision, federal or state, on reasonable accommodation or modification against a Michigan association. The governing federal authority in this circuit remains Davis v Echo Valley Condominium Association, 945 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2019), holding an association-wide smoking ban was not a reasonable accommodation, and Madej v Maiden, 951 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2020), on the reliability of causation evidence.

Two Eastern District of Michigan association dockets are pending with no ruling: Kaiser-Lee v Magnolia Park Homeowners Association, No. 2:26-cv-10356 (filed 30 January 2026) and Megmad Family Trust v Northpointe Townhomes Condominium Association, No. 2:25-cv-13355 (filed 22 October 2025).

No Michigan bill would change any of this

The 2025–2026 session contains no bill on pets, assistance animals or service animals in a community-association context. The two service-animal bills that exist — House Bill 4542 and Senate Bill 390 — create tort remedies for harming a service animal and say nothing about association rules.

What to watch next

Whether the Michigan Department of Civil Rights issues its own statement. Other states' civil rights agencies have responded to the federal shift by confirming that state protection is unchanged, and a Michigan statement would give boards something concrete to calibrate against. None has been issued as of today.