What an Ohio board actually lost

Not the duty. The roadmap.

The reasonable-accommodation obligation at 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B) is statutory and untouched. What FHEO 2020-01 provided was the method: how much documentation a housing provider could request, from whom, what the “commonly kept in the household” analysis looked like, how to handle a unique animal, and where the line sat between a legitimate inquiry and an unlawful one.

That was the safe path. Boards followed it and were, in practice, defensible. It is gone.

So Ohio boards are now making accommodation decisions with more legal exposure and less federal instruction than at any point since 2013. The statute still binds, HUD still enforces its text, and a homeowner can still sue in federal or Ohio state court within two years. What no longer exists is a document a board can point to and say it followed. Our Ohio pet restrictions page covers where the accommodation duty meets a declaration's pet rules.

Disparate impact is still current law

HUD's discriminatory-effects rule at 24 CFR 100.500 also remains in force. Its operative sentence, current in the eCFR today:

“Liability may be established under the Fair Housing Act based on a practice's discriminatory effect, as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, even if the practice was not motivated by a discriminatory intent.”

HUD has proposed to delete it twice, and neither proposal is final. A proposed rule at 91 FR 1475 (January 14, 2026) would remove the subpart; a supplemental proposal at 91 FR 51416 (August 10, 2026), Docket FR-6540-P-02, extends the effort to HUD's Title VI regulations. Comments on the supplemental proposal close October 9, 2026 — the period is still open.

A repeal under consideration is not a repeal. An Ohio association adopting a rule with a disproportionate effect on a protected class in reliance on “disparate impact is going away” is relying on a proposal.

How to decide an accommodation request now

Keep doing what the withdrawn guidance said. It is no longer authoritative, but it was HUD's considered reading of the statute for five years and it remains the most defensible framework available. Nothing has replaced it, and courts have not repudiated it.

Ask only what the statute lets you ask. Where a disability and the disability-related need are not obvious, a request for reliable documentation is appropriate. Requests for medical records, diagnosis details, or animal certification from a commercial registry were problematic before and remain so.

Decide in writing, with reasons, and quickly. Delay is itself treated as a refusal. A written decision is what an association will produce if a complaint follows, and it is the only evidence that the board engaged with the request rather than applied the rule.

Separate the accommodation from the conduct. An assistance animal that damages common property or threatens residents can be addressed on conduct. A blanket rule cannot be applied to it.

Do not act on unverified reports of new HUD policy. Material has circulated describing a 2026 HUD enforcement memorandum narrowing the accommodation standard toward the ADA's trained-service-animal test. We have not seen that document and cannot confirm it exists. The only HUD action established on the record is the withdrawal above, and a board that tightens its practice on the strength of an unverified memorandum is taking the risk personally.

The two-year clock

For Ohio boards the exposure has a practical shape. A homeowner has two years from the occurrence or termination of the practice to file in court. A decision made in the autumn of 2026 is actionable into 2028, long after whichever board made it has rotated out.