What removal would and would not do

The distinction HUD itself draws is the one that matters. HUD proposes to remove its own regulatory framework for proving discriminatory effect, “leaving to courts questions related to interpretations of disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act.”

That is a repeal of a burden-shifting test, not of a cause of action. Disparate-impact liability under the Fair Housing Act has a Supreme Court foundation independent of HUD's rule. Removing § 100.500 would take away the administrative framework and leave the underlying theory to be worked out case by case.

Why a Wisconsin association is exposed on two flanks regardless

Wisconsin associations are subject to two fair-housing regimes, and this rulemaking reaches only one of them.

The federal Fair Housing Act is one. The other is Wisconsin's Open Housing Law, Wis. Stat. § 106.50, enforced by the Department of Workforce Development's Equal Rights Division on its own terms. Removing a HUD regulation does not touch § 106.50 and does not bind Wisconsin courts on a state claim.

So the category-level statement that survives scrutiny is this: the federal administrative test is proposed for removal; the federal statutory theory survives in the courts; the Wisconsin claim is untouched. A rule of an association with a disproportionate effect — an occupancy cap, a supervision rule at a pool, a guest-parking restriction — remains challengeable on all three tracks.

The regulation that has not moved at all

There is a second HUD regulation associations ask about, and it is worth separating because it is frequently swept into the same story. 24 C.F.R. § 100.7, “Liability for discriminatory housing practices” — the provision under which a housing provider can be liable for discriminatory practices including third-party harassment it knew about and had power to correct — has exactly one recorded version in the Code of Federal Regulations, dated January 3, 2017. It has not been amended since.⁴

Any claim that HUD has rolled back association liability for harassment is wrong. That rulemaking has not happened.

The Wisconsin evidentiary vacuum underneath all of this

A full sweep of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion index for the last three years returns no appellate decision addressing an assistance-animal or Fair Housing Act claim against a homeowners or condominium association. The index returns zero substantive hits for “assistance animal” in that window.

Wisconsin's Legislature did try to legislate in the adjacent area and failed. 2025 Assembly Bill 366, which would have let “a representative of a condominium association” require documentation from a licensed health professional before allowing an emotional support animal, passed both houses, was vetoed December 5, 2025, and the override failed May 13, 2026.

So a Wisconsin board has no Wisconsin appellate guidance, an unamended state statute, and a federal framework that is under active proposal to change. Our Wisconsin pet restrictions and fining authority pages cover what the law does say.

What to watch next

The immediate date is October 9, 2026, when the supplemental comment period closes. HUD has said it will consider only comments on topics related to the supplemental notice during the reopened period, which narrows what a late filing can address.

After that, the question is whether a final rule issues and on what timetable. Until one does, § 100.500 stays in the Code of Federal Regulations exactly as amended on May 1, 2023, and anyone treating it as already gone is describing a proposal as though it were law.