South Dakota HOA Religious Displays

Section 1 — Overview: How religious displays are regulated in South Dakota HOAs

South Dakota hasn't passed a homeowners-association religious-display statute. So an association's authority over mezuzahs, crosses, nativity scenes, menorahs, religious statuary, and holiday decorations comes from three places instead: the federal Fair Housing Act, the South Dakota Human Relations Act, and the community's recorded declaration.¹ A common misconception holds that the First Amendment limits what an association can restrict. It generally doesn't, because a private community association isn't ordinarily a state actor, and the First Amendment constrains government, not private parties.² The operative federal floor is the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(b), which reaches community associations acting as housing providers and bars discrimination because of religion in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling.¹ At the state level, the South Dakota Human Relations Act, S.D. Codified Laws Section 20-13-1 et seq., parallels the federal prohibition and forbids religious and creed discrimination in housing; the South Dakota Division of Human Rights, inside the Department of Labor and Regulation, administers it.³ In practice, the architectural and decoration rules written into the recorded declaration govern displays day to day, but fair housing law constrains those rules. South Dakota is a light-touch state with no comprehensive common-interest-community code, and its Condominium Law says nothing about religious displays.⁴ Only a minority of states have display-specific statutes, and South Dakota isn't one of them. What follows lays out the federal floor, the state-law overlay, and the role the recorded declaration plays.

Section 2 — The legal framework

2A. The First Amendment threshold and the federal Fair Housing Act

The First Amendment restrains government actors, not private community associations, so a homeowner generally can't invoke federal free-exercise or free-speech rights against an association's display rule. Courts have treated community associations as private entities rather than state actors. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association, 192 N.J. 344 (2007), and its companion decision Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Association v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482 (2012), recognized narrow state-constitutional expression protections inside associations — but that New Jersey line is an outlier, not the federal baseline and not South Dakota's rule.⁵ The controlling framework is the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.⁶ Section 3604(b) makes it unlawful to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in the services or facilities that go with it, because of religion, among other protected classes, and it applies to associations acting as housing providers.¹ Two theories matter for displays. Disparate treatment is the first: a rule that targets a religion, or that permits secular door items while banning a mezuzah, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent. Disparate impact is the second: a facially neutral rule that predictably excludes observant adherents can create liability even without intent — a theory the Supreme Court confirmed under the Fair Housing Act in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U.S. 519 (2015), and one HUD's own regulations recognize at 24 C.F.R. Section 100.500.⁷⁸ The leading door-display authority is Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc), which held that a condominium association's enforcement of a hallway rule to remove residents' mezuzot could state a Fair Housing Act claim.⁹ Bloch is Seventh Circuit precedent, and it's persuasive rather than binding in South Dakota, which sits in the Eighth Circuit. HUD's liability rule, 24 C.F.R. Section 100.7, holds that a housing provider can be directly liable for its own discriminatory conduct and, in defined circumstances, for failing to correct discriminatory conduct it knew about and had the power to fix.¹⁰ The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq., constrains government land-use regulation and institutions, and it generally doesn't apply to a private association's display restrictions.¹¹

2B. South Dakota law: the Human Relations Act, the light-touch statutory framework, and the absence of a display statute

The South Dakota Human Relations Act of 1972, S.D. Codified Laws Section 20-13-1 et seq., prohibits discrimination in housing because of creed and religion, along with race, color, sex, ancestry, disability, familial status, and national origin, and the South Dakota Division of Human Rights, inside the Department of Labor and Regulation, administers it.³ Its housing provisions, at Section 20-13-20, reach owners and their agents in the sale, rental, and terms of housing, and they parallel the federal Fair Housing Act on religion. The act has no display-specific provision.¹² South Dakota hasn't enacted a religious-display statute of the kind found in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, Rhode Island, or Texas. Two clarifications matter here. First, although the South Dakota act closely tracks the federal Fair Housing Act in substance, the South Dakota Division of Human Rights doesn't appear on HUD's published list of certified substantially equivalent Fair Housing Assistance Program agencies. So fair-housing complaints in South Dakota commonly get handled directly by HUD or through private suit, rather than through a HUD-funded, substantially equivalent state agency.¹³ Second, on the governing-statute side, South Dakota has no comprehensive common-interest-community code and hasn't adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. The South Dakota Condominium Law, S.D. Codified Laws Section 43-15A-1 et seq., governs only condominium regimes that expressly elect coverage by recording a master deed or declaration with the county register of deeds — see Sections 43-15A-3 and 43-15A-4. It's a traditional condominium statute, not a UCIOA-based code, and it doesn't address religious displays.⁴ Non-condominium homeowners associations run on their recorded covenants, on the South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act, S.D. Codified Laws Section 47-22-1 et seq., where incorporated as a nonprofit, and on common law. The Nonprofit Corporation Act supplies corporate formalities, not display rules; none of these sources addresses religious displays.¹⁴

2C. CC&Rs, architectural controls, and the limits on enforcement

Associations regulate displays through architectural and aesthetic covenants, holiday-decoration limits, and sign and flag rules. Because South Dakota is a light-touch state with no comprehensive code, the working rulebook is largely the recorded declaration — enforceable as a set of contract terms, but constrained by the federal Fair Housing Act and the South Dakota Human Relations Act.¹¹² The practical line runs between purely decorative items and items that fulfill a religious obligation. Applying a neutral decoration rule to a seasonal ornament may be lawful; applying that same rule to prevent an observant adherent from affixing a mezuzah can create disparate-impact exposure. In Bloch, the record included a letter from the Chicago Rabbinical Council explaining that Jewish law requires mezuzot to be displayed on the exterior doorpost rather than indoors, and that observant Jews couldn't live in a place that prohibited affixing them.⁹ The drafting principle that lowers risk is a facially neutral rule, applied consistently across faiths and secular displays, that still leaves a pathway for religious items. The order of precedence runs from federal and state fair housing law, to the recorded declaration, to the bylaws, to board-adopted rules. The operational takeaway: in South Dakota, where boards have wide latitude and governance rests on the declaration and on corporate formalities, the working rulebook is the declaration read against the federal and state fair housing floor, with the Condominium Law supplying the condominium framework only where a regime has elected coverage — not any religious-display rule.

Section 3 — Compliance obligations created by the framework

Fair-housing obligations apply to South Dakota associations regardless of community type. The condominium-versus-planned-community distinction doesn't change the fair-housing analysis; it changes only the governing-statute and procedural framing.

A. Anti-discrimination obligations

An association can't treat one religion's displays worse than others, or worse than comparable secular items, and it can't single out specific symbols for removal. That flows from federal law, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(b), and the South Dakota Human Relations Act, S.D. Codified Laws Section 20-13-20.¹¹² Enforcement should stay even-handed across faiths and secular displays, and boards should recognize that a neutral rule that predictably excludes observant adherents can create disparate-impact exposure under federal law — Inclusive Communities, 576 U.S. 519 (2015), and 24 C.F.R. Section 100.500.⁷⁸

B. Holiday-decoration and multi-faith obligations

Decoration policies that set timing and size limits should account for multiple faith calendars, not just Christian holidays, and should treat religious and secular seasonal displays even-handedly. This obligation flows from federal law, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(b), and the South Dakota Human Relations Act, S.D. Codified Laws Section 20-13-20, because uneven timing windows can operate as disparate treatment or disparate impact.¹¹²

C. Rule-drafting and governing-document obligations

Display and architectural rules should stay facially neutral as to religion, avoid naming specific symbols, and rest on a documented, legitimate, non-discriminatory aesthetic or safety rationale. This obligation flows from federal law — the Fair Housing Act and 24 C.F.R. Section 100.500, under which a challenged practice must serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest — and from the CC&Rs and common law that make the declaration the source of an association's rule-making authority.⁸

D. Notice, hearing, and enforcement obligations

Before fining a homeowner or compelling removal of a display, an association should follow the notice and opportunity-to-be-heard procedure set out in its declaration and bylaws and, where the association is incorporated, the corporate formalities of the South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act, S.D. Codified Laws Section 47-22-1 et seq. For a condominium regime that has elected coverage, the Condominium Law, S.D. Codified Laws Section 43-15A-1 et seq., supplies additional structure.¹⁴⁴ These procedural obligations come primarily from the declaration, the bylaws, and nonprofit corporation law. Get the enforcement process wrong, and the association compounds its fair-housing exposure.

Section 4 — Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

A review of the South Dakota Legislature's 2024, 2025, and 2026 sessions turned up no bill governing religious displays in associations, association display rights, or fair housing as applied to associations.¹⁵ General measures that touch associations or religious display in other contexts — a 2024 bill on modifying restrictive covenants, and a 2025 bill on Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms — aren't religious-display-in-association legislation, and they're noted here only to confirm the absence of on-point activity. No qualifying bill exists to report.

B. Recent rulings

A review of South Dakota Supreme Court opinions, along with decisions from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, turned up no decision in the past three years interpreting the South Dakota Human Relations Act in a housing display dispute, the South Dakota Condominium Law, or CC&R display enforcement or association religious discrimination. South Dakota has no intermediate appellate court, so state civil disputes move from the Circuit Courts directly to the South Dakota Supreme Court, while federal Fair Housing Act claims are heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, with appeals to the Eighth Circuit.¹⁶ The controlling door-display authority remains out-of-circuit and persuasive only, principally Bloch v. Frischholz in the Seventh Circuit.⁹ No qualifying case exists to report.

C. Active legislative debates

No active South Dakota proposal toward a religious-display statute has surfaced. Nationally, a minority of states have adopted display-specific statutes protecting religious items on doors and doorframes, and additional states have considered similar measures in recent sessions.

Section 5 — National positioning and related coverage

South Dakota sits with the majority of states that have no display-specific statute, where the federal Fair Housing Act and state fair housing law govern religious displays in associations. It isn't among the minority of states that expressly bar associations from prohibiting religious items on entry doors and doorframes: California (Civil Code Section 4706, enacted by SB 652 and effective January 1, 2020),¹⁷ Colorado (C.R.S. Section 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5)),¹⁸ Connecticut (General Statutes Section 47-230a),¹⁹ Florida (Statutes Section 718.113(6), for condominiums),²⁰ Illinois (765 ILCS 605/18.4, for condominiums),²¹ Nevada (NRS 116.323),²² Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws Section 34-37-5.5),²³ and Texas (Property Code Section 202.018).²⁴ For a multi-state operator, the practical point is this: the Fair Housing Act floor holds steady nationwide, while those statute states layer door- and doorframe-specific rules, and sometimes yard-display rules, on top of it. South Dakota has no pending legislation moving toward such a statute.

This coverage updates quarterly as the legislature, the South Dakota courts, and the federal courts act. The federal Fair Housing Act is the operative federal framework for this topic, and other federal frameworks — the ADA, the FDCPA, the SCRA, and OTARD — also reach South Dakota associations.

Footnotes

1. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(b), Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives ↩
2. Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association, 192 N.J. 344 (2007) (holding a private homeowners' association is not a state actor) ↩
3. South Dakota Division of Human Rights, Department of Labor and Regulation (administering the South Dakota Human Relations Act of 1972) ↩
4. S.D. Codified Laws Chapter 43-15A, Condominiums (Sections 43-15A-1, 43-15A-3, 43-15A-4), South Dakota Legislature ↩
5. Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association (New Jersey state-constitutional expression analysis in the community-association context) ↩
6. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 45 (Sections 3601 et seq.), Office of the Law Revision Counsel ↩
7. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), U.S. Department of Justice ↩
8. 24 C.F.R. Section 100.500, Discriminatory effect prohibited, eCFR ↩
9. Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc), opinion via U.S. Department of Justice ↩
10. 24 C.F.R. Section 100.7, Liability for discriminatory housing practices, eCFR ↩
11. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21C (Sections 2000cc et seq.), Office of the Law Revision Counsel ↩
12. S.D. Codified Laws Chapter 20-13, Human Rights (including Section 20-13-20, unfair or discriminatory housing practices), South Dakota Legislature ↩
13. HUD, Fair Housing Assistance Program and list of certified substantially equivalent agencies (South Dakota's Division of Human Rights not listed) ↩
14. S.D. Codified Laws Chapter 47-22, Nonprofit Corporations (corporate structure and procedure), South Dakota Legislature ↩
15. South Dakota Legislature, session bill lists (2024, 2025, 2026), reviewed for religious-display or association-display legislation ↩
16. South Dakota Unified Judicial System, court structure (Circuit Courts to the Supreme Court; no intermediate appellate court) ↩
17. California Civil Code Section 4706, California Legislative Information ↩
18. Colorado Revised Statutes Section 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5), Colorado General Assembly law summary ↩
19. Connecticut General Statutes Section 47-230a, Connecticut General Assembly ↩
20. Florida Statutes Section 718.113(6), The Florida Senate ↩
21. 765 ILCS 605/18.4, Illinois Condominium Property Act, Illinois General Assembly ↩
22. Nevada Revised Statutes Section 116.323, Nevada Legislature ↩
23. R.I. General Laws Section 34-37-5.5, Rhode Island Fair Housing Practices Act, Rhode Island General Assembly ↩
24. Texas Property Code Section 202.018, Texas Legislature ↩