Emotional support animal housing law in Michigan

The federal position, as of 2026

On 22 May 2026 HUD permanently rescinded its 2020 assistance animal notice and narrowed its own enforcement to animals individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability. That is the Americans with Disabilities Act service animal test, and an emotional support animal does not meet it. A complaint to HUD about a refused emotional support animal is now unlikely to produce a finding of reasonable cause.

What survived:

• The Fair Housing Act itself is unchanged. Congress wrote the statute and HUD only changed how it enforces it, so the statutory duty to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities still stands.
• The private right of action is unchanged. A tenant can still sue in state or federal court, and a court interpreting the statute is not bound by an agency's enforcement posture.
• State law is untouched. HUD has no authority over a state statute, and this is where the protection now mostly lives.

Michigan law

Michigan has its own fair housing statute, the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (MCL § 37.1502), enforced by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. A state complaint runs on state law, so HUD changing its own enforcement priorities does not decide it.

Michigan has no statute written specifically about emotional support animals. That is the ordinary position: only seven states have one. It means the question in Michigan is decided by the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act and by how a court reads the reasonable accommodation duty, not by a dedicated rule you can point a landlord at.

What a housing provider may ask for

• Where the disability is not obvious, reliable documentation of the disability and of the disability-related need for the animal.
• Nothing about the nature or severity of the condition, no diagnosis, and no medical records.
• No certification, licence, training or registration for the animal, because none of those exist for an emotional support animal.
• No breed, weight or size restriction applied as though the animal were a pet, where the accommodation is granted.

Grounds a provider can still rely on

• The specific animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be reduced by another reasonable accommodation. This has to be about the actual animal and its actual conduct, not about a breed.
• The animal would cause substantial physical damage to property.
• The accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden, or fundamentally alter the provider's operations.
• The documentation is not reliable.

Misrepresentation in Michigan

Michigan has no misrepresentation penalty on the books that we have been able to verify. Supplying false information to a housing provider is still a bad idea on ordinary contract and fraud grounds, and it can support an eviction.

If you move

A letter is tied to the licence of the clinician who wrote it, not to your lease. Moving out of Michigan does not void it, but a new housing provider is entitled to reliable documentation, and a clinician licensed only in Michigan is a weaker answer to that question once you live somewhere else. Michigan sits in the Midwest, and the rules next door are not the same.

Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri run on the federal position plus their own fair housing statute, much as Michigan does.

Where a complaint goes

To the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (MCL § 37.1502). A state complaint is decided on state law, which is why it matters more now than it did before May 2026.

A Michigan housing provider handed a letter has no register to check it against, which is the reason so much of this market is worthless paper. Every letter issued here carries a six digit ESA ID and a public verification page, so a landlord can confirm the letter is real, current, and issued by a licensed clinician without being shown a single word about anybody's health.