Updated 2026 Guide to ESA Laws by State and What HUD Changes Mean for You

The Alabama Assistance and Service Animal Integrity in Housing Act expressly recognizes assistance animals, including animals that may provide emotional support.

But there is an important catch. Alabama’s definition ties an assistance animal to an animal that qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the federal Fair Housing Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

So Alabama has its own statute addressing assistance animals, documentation, and housing — but the underlying definition remains substantially connected to federal qualification standards. That’s why Alabama belongs in our 🟡 Federal-linked protection category.

Alaska prohibits disability discrimination in housing through AS 18.80.240, and Alaska law broadly defines disability.

But Alaska does not have a clear ESA-specific state statute creating an independent housing right for an untrained emotional support animal.

Importantly, Alaska’s own State Commission for Human Rights has published information about emotional support animals in housing — but that guidance explains ESA accommodation primarily through federal fair-housing law.

For that reason, we did not identify a sufficiently clear independent Alaska ESA protection separate from the federal framework.

On May 13, 2025, H.B. 2068 (2025 Session Laws, Ch. 191) amended A.R.S. §41-1491(2) to define an “assistance animal” as an animal that may be trained or untrained, including animals that provide emotional or therapeutic support.

That gives Arizona its own state-law definition that does not depend entirely on HUD’s current federal enforcement position.

Arkansas has state law addressing assistance animals in housing, but its framework is closely tied to federal fair-housing standards.

Arkansas Code §20-14-1005 incorporates Fair Housing Act concepts into the state’s assistance-animal framework rather than establishing a completely separate ESA housing system.

That gives Arkansas more state statutory structure than a pure federal-only state, but the protection remains sufficiently connected to federal law that 🟡 Federal-linked protection is the better fit.

California independently protects qualifying emotional support animals in housing through the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California fair-housing regulations.

California’s Civil Rights Department specifically explains that refusing a necessary emotional-support animal can constitute unlawful housing discrimination and that ESAs are not subject to ordinary pet breed, size, weight, pet-deposit, or pet-rent rules. In July 2026, the Department issued a legal alert confirming that state fair-housing law still requires housing providers to allow untrained ESAs despite HUD’s change.

One important distinction: AB 468 did not create California’s housing right to an ESA. Health & Safety Code §§122317–122319 regulate emotional-support-dog sales, representations, and certain healthcare-provider documentation. California’s Civil Rights Department expressly states that AB 468 did not change existing fair-housing rights. The housing protection comes from California fair-housing law itself.

AB 468 does add documentation requirements for a healthcare practitioner who provides documentation relating to a person’s need for an emotional support dog, including licensing requirements, a clinical evaluation, and generally an established provider relationship of at least 30 days.

Colorado is one of the most interesting states in this entire guide.

In 2025, Colorado law still relied heavily on federal standards concerning emotional support animals. Then the federal landscape changed.

In direct response to HUD’s May 2026 enforcement shift, Colorado passed HB 26-1045, “Disabilities Housing Protections.” Governor Jared Polis signed the bill, and it became effective August 12, 2026.

The law added independent definitions concerning “assistance animals” and emotional support to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act and strengthened state-level housing protections regardless of HUD’s current federal administrative enforcement position.

So Colorado didn’t just happen to have protection sitting around when HUD changed course. Colorado responded.

Connecticut General Statutes §46a-64c requires reasonable accommodations for disability in housing. The statute does not contain a neat standalone ESA definition. But Connecticut has gone further than a purely federal-only approach.

Connecticut law specifically directs the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) to provide educational information concerning service animals, emotional support animals, therapy animals, and the rights and responsibilities that apply under state and federal law.

Connecticut’s own fair-housing reasonable-accommodation law and state civil-rights enforcement framework therefore provide a meaningful state-law path for ESA accommodation requests. That’s why Connecticut fits our 🔵 Broader state-law protection category.

Delaware’s Fair Housing Act contains a general disability reasonable-accommodation requirement. However, Delaware does not currently have a clear ESA-specific state provision establishing an independent right for untrained emotional support animals.

A 2024 proposal, SB 219, would have added an explicit “support animal” definition to Delaware’s Fair Housing Act, but it did not become law.

So although Delaware residents may still have important accommodation rights under federal law and Delaware’s broader disability-discrimination framework, we did not identify sufficiently clear independent Delaware authority specifically protecting untrained ESAs.

Washington, D.C. does not need a standalone statute literally titled “Emotional Support Animal Act” to have meaningful local protection.

The D.C. Human Rights Act independently prohibits disability discrimination in housing. More importantly, the D.C. Office of Human Rights and D.C. tenant guidance recognize assistance animals in housing and distinguish them from trained public-access service animals. Support animals can provide disability-related therapeutic or emotional support and do not necessarily need individualized task training.

That gives D.C. residents a genuine local civil-rights framework for assistance-animal accommodation rather than leaving them dependent exclusively on HUD’s federal administrative enforcement. So D.C. belongs in our 🔵 Broader state-law protection category.

Florida has one of the clearest state statutes addressing emotional support animals in housing. Florida Statutes §760.27 expressly recognizes emotional support animals and sets rules for housing accommodation requests, documentation, fees, and fraudulent claims.

But Florida’s statute is closely connected to federal disability-accommodation standards, which is why we place Florida in the federal-linked category rather than treating it as completely independent of federal law.

Georgia does not have an ESA-specific housing statute.

Georgia’s Fair Housing Law prohibits disability discrimination in housing, and Georgia has its own fair-housing enforcement framework. However, we did not identify sufficiently clear Georgia state authority independently establishing housing protection specifically for an untrained emotional support animal.

For that reason, federal fair-housing law remains especially important for ESA accommodation requests in Georgia.

Hawaii has one of the clearer state-law frameworks in the country.

Hawaii’s fair-housing law defines an “assistance animal” broadly and expressly recognizes that an assistance animal may have formal training or may be untrained. The law also recognizes that assistance animals are not limited to dogs.

That gives qualifying Hawaii residents a meaningful state-law housing protection independent of HUD’s current administrative enforcement position.

Idaho’s Human Rights Act broadly prohibits disability discrimination in housing, but Idaho does not have a clear state ESA housing statute independently protecting untrained emotional support animals.

Idaho Code §18-5811A addresses misrepresentation involving assistance animals, but an anti-fraud provision isn’t the same thing as creating an affirmative ESA housing right.

So federal fair-housing law remains especially important for ESA accommodation requests in Idaho.

Illinois has its own Assistance Animal Integrity Act, which specifically addresses assistance animals in housing.

Illinois law recognizes animals that provide emotional support and establishes rules concerning documentation that housing providers may request when considering a reasonable-accommodation request.

This gives Illinois a meaningful state-law framework that does not depend solely on HUD’s current administrative enforcement position.

Indiana has its own state statutory framework specifically addressing emotional support animals in housing.

Indiana Code Article 22-9-7 defines “emotional support animal,” establishes requirements concerning housing accommodation requests and supporting documentation, and includes penalties for misrepresentation.

Unlike states whose assistance-animal definitions simply point back to the federal FHA, Indiana created its own detailed statutory framework. That’s enough to put Indiana comfortably in our 🟢 Clear independent state protection category.

Iowa has its own assistance-animal statute and detailed documentation rules.

However, Iowa Code §216.8B defines an “assistance animal” by reference to an animal that qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the federal Fair Housing Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Iowa therefore adds meaningful state-level procedures and documentation requirements, but the underlying qualification standard remains substantially tied to federal law. That’s why Iowa belongs in the 🟡 Federal-linked protection category.

Kansas does not currently have an enacted ESA-specific housing statute. The Kansas Act Against Discrimination broadly prohibits disability discrimination, while the Kansas White Cane Law addresses trained assistance dogs rather than untrained emotional support animals.

And here’s where internet research gets particularly messy: several ESA websites have claimed that Kansas enacted an “Assistance Animals in Housing Act.” We checked. Kansas lawmakers considered legislation along those lines multiple times, including SB 360, but those proposals did not become enacted Kansas law.

So we did not identify a sufficiently clear independent Kansas state-law protection specifically for untrained ESAs. Federal fair-housing law remains especially important.

Kentucky has its own assistance-animal housing statute.

Kentucky law addresses reasonable-accommodation requests involving assistance animals and establishes requirements concerning documentation and the relationship between the individual and the healthcare provider supplying supporting information.

That gives Kentucky an independent state statutory framework for qualifying assistance-animal housing requests.

Louisiana’s older service-animal housing statute, R.S. 46:1954, primarily addresses trained service dogs.

But Louisiana also enacted the Support and Service Animal Integrity Act in 2024. That law expressly defines a “support animal” as an animal that provides assistance or therapeutic emotional support to a person with a disability and creates detailed standards concerning healthcare-provider documentation.

The important catch is that the Act says it does not restrict or modify existing state or federal reasonable-accommodation and housing rights. In other words, Louisiana recognizes support animals and regulates legitimate documentation, but the 2024 Act does not clearly create an entirely new standalone ESA housing entitlement by itself.

Because the operative housing right remains closely connected to the broader fair-housing framework, we place Louisiana in the 🟡 Federal-linked protection category.

Maine independently defines “assistance animal” broadly. Under Maine law, an assistance animal can include an animal necessary to mitigate the effects of a person’s disability and is distinct from the state’s narrower definition of a trained service animal.

Maine’s housing discrimination law also makes it unlawful, in qualifying circumstances, to refuse a reasonable accommodation involving an assistance animal.

That gives Maine a meaningful state-law basis independent of HUD’s current federal enforcement posture.

Maryland law expressly distinguishes trained service animals from animals providing only emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship in its service-animal provisions. Maryland also has broader state disability-discrimination and reasonable-accommodation protections.

However, we did not identify sufficiently clear Maryland state authority independently establishing a specific housing right for an untrained emotional support animal comparable to the green or blue states in this guide.

Federal fair-housing law therefore remains especially important.

Massachusetts is a great example of why looking only for the letters “ESA” in a statute can give you the wrong answer. Massachusetts does not have a neat standalone ESA statute.

But Massachusetts state authorities recognize “assistance animal” as an umbrella concept that can include trained and untrained animals providing disability-related emotional support. Massachusetts case law and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination have applied state fair-housing protections to assistance-animal accommodation requests.

And following HUD’s federal enforcement change, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination publicly reaffirmed in 2026 that Massachusetts continues to protect individuals with disabilities who need assistance animals in housing under state law. That’s a meaningful independent state-law protection.

Michigan still does not have a standalone ESA housing statute. Earlier ESA legislation actually passed both chambers of the Michigan Legislature in 2020 but was vetoed.

However, that’s no longer the end of Michigan’s story. On July 27, 2026, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission issued a ruling against a Marquette landlord concerning the denial of a tenant’s reasonable-accommodation request for an emotional support animal. The Commission found that the landlord violated Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA).

Michigan’s Department of Civil Rights also identifies allowing a service or support animal in a no-pet housing complex as an example of a reasonable accommodation. That gives Michigan a genuine state-law path for ESA accommodation even without a standalone ESA statute. So Michigan belongs in our 🔵 Broader state-law protection category.

Minnesota Statute §504B.113 independently defines a “support animal” and expressly recognizes that the animal does not need to be trained to perform a specific disability-related task. Minnesota also has its own documentation and anti-fraud framework.

That gives Minnesota a clear state statutory basis for support-animal housing accommodations independent of HUD’s current federal administrative enforcement position.

Mississippi does not currently have the kind of comprehensive state fair-housing framework protecting disability that many other states have. Its Support Animal Act primarily addresses trained animals used by certain individuals with disabilities and does not establish a general independent housing right for untrained emotional support animals.

As a result, federal fair-housing law remains especially important for ESA housing accommodations in Mississippi.

Missouri law does define “assistance animal” broadly enough to include animals providing emotional support. However, that definition appears within an anti-fraud/misrepresentation framework that points to accommodations under the Fair Housing Act or Rehabilitation Act as the source of the underlying accommodation right.

Missouri’s separate housing-access statute is narrower and does not establish a general independent ESA housing right.

So Missouri has ESA-related statutory language, but we did not identify a sufficiently clear independent Missouri housing protection for untrained ESAs.

Montana has an unusually direct state ESA housing statute. MCA §70-24-114 provides that a tenant with a disability or disability-related need for an emotional support animal may request an ESA as a reasonable accommodation in housing.

Montana also has its own rules concerning supporting documentation, including provider-relationship requirements in qualifying circumstances. The state strengthened its documentation framework further in 2025.

Because Montana’s statute itself affirmatively addresses emotional support animals in housing rather than merely pointing back to federal law, Montana belongs in the 🟢 Clear independent state protection category.

Nebraska’s Assistance Animal Integrity in Housing Act is primarily an anti-fraud and documentation law rather than the source of the underlying accommodation right. But Nebraska is not purely federal-only.

The Nebraska Supreme Court applied Nebraska’s own Fair Housing Act to an ESA accommodation dispute in Guenther v. Walnut Grove Hillside Condo. Regime No. 3, 309 Neb. 655 (2021). The tenant did not prevail on the particular issue before the court, but the case confirms something very important for our classification: ESA accommodation requests can be analyzed under Nebraska’s own Fair Housing Act.

That makes Nebraska a much better fit for 🔵 Broader state-law protection than red.

Nevada law provides its own housing protections involving assistance animals and disability-related accommodations.

Nevada’s statutory framework gives qualifying residents an independent state-law basis for requesting an assistance animal rather than relying exclusively on HUD’s current federal enforcement posture.

New Hampshire does not have a standalone statute called an “Emotional Support Animal Act.” Its service-animal law, RSA 167-D, uses a trained service-animal definition and makes clear that emotional support, comfort, well-being, or companionship alone does not constitute trained work or tasks under that chapter.

But that’s not the end of the story. New Hampshire’s own Law Against Discrimination, RSA 354-A, independently prohibits disability discrimination in housing and makes it unlawful to refuse reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when those accommodations may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Even better, the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights publishes official housing guidance specifically addressing service animals and emotional support animals as distinct categories. Taken together, New Hampshire has an independent state-law fair-housing path for ESA accommodations rather than relying only on federal HUD enforcement.

One important caveat: state and federal fair-housing laws contain exemptions for certain properties (for example, RSA 354-A:15 exempts certain owner-occupied buildings with no more than four families), so coverage can depend on the type of housing involved.

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination independently prohibits disability discrimination in housing.

New Jersey courts have also addressed reasonable-accommodation requests involving assistance animals, including the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Players Place II Condominium Association v. K.P., giving residents meaningful state-law authority beyond federal administrative enforcement alone.

New Mexico’s Service Animal Act, NMSA §28-11-2, does not include emotional support animals within its definition of a “qualified service animal.”

The New Mexico Human Rights Act broadly prohibits disability discrimination in housing, but we did not identify sufficiently clear state statutory language, controlling state case law, or authoritative state guidance independently extending that protection specifically to untrained emotional support animals.

That does not mean an ESA is illegal or that an accommodation can automatically be denied. It means federal fair-housing law remains especially important in New Mexico.

New York provides meaningful state-level protection through the New York State Human Rights Law.

The New York State Division of Human Rights recognizes reasonable-accommodation rights involving emotional support animals in housing, giving New Yorkers a state civil-rights framework that does not depend exclusively on HUD’s administrative enforcement position.

New York City residents may also have additional protection under the New York City Human Rights Law.

North Carolina considered ESA-specific legislation in 2019, including HB 680 and HB 796, but those bills did not become law. That might make North Carolina look like a federal-only state at first glance.

But North Carolina has its own State Fair Housing Act, which prohibits disability discrimination and requires reasonable accommodations in qualifying housing. North Carolina’s own fair-housing educational materials also use an emotional support animal as an example of a reasonable accommodation.

So although North Carolina does not have a clean standalone ESA statute, there is affirmative state-level fair-housing authority reaching ESA accommodations. That makes North Carolina a better fit for our 🔵 Broader state-law protection category.

North Dakota has statutes regulating assistance-animal documentation and misrepresentation, including N.D. Cent. Code §47-16-07.5 and related provisions. Those laws provide useful rules for handling documentation and fraudulent claims.

But we did not identify a sufficiently clear independent North Dakota statutory right protecting an untrained emotional support animal in housing separate from the broader federal accommodation framework.

So federal fair-housing law remains especially important in North Dakota.

Ohio turned out to be more interesting than it first appeared. Ohio Administrative Code §4112-5-02 defines an “animal assistant” broadly as an animal that aids a person with a disability. And O.A.C. §4112-5-07 provides state-level housing protection involving an animal assistant, including the ability of a person with a disability to keep the animal without an additional charge.

The terminology isn’t as clean as a statute that simply says “emotional support animal,” but Ohio’s statewide administrative rules are broader than a trained-service-dog-only framework. That’s enough affirmative state authority to move Ohio out of red. Ohio therefore belongs in our 🔵 Broader state-law protection category.

Oklahoma law independently defines an “assistance animal” for housing purposes to include an animal that provides emotional support alleviating one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability. Oklahoma also has its own documentation and anti-fraud provisions.

Importantly, the state framework is not simply a definition saying, “whatever federal law protects.” Oklahoma actually wrote emotional support into its own housing law. That earns Oklahoma a solid 🟢 Clear independent state protection rating.

Oregon has its own disability housing-discrimination law in ORS Chapter 659A and its own state civil-rights enforcement system through the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

What Oregon does not have is a clear ESA-specific state statutory definition comparable to states such as Minnesota, Virginia, or Wisconsin. Because our classification system requires affirmative state authority specifically reaching untrained emotional support or assistance animals — rather than assuming every general disability-accommodation statute automatically does — we’re keeping Oregon in the cautious category: 🔴 No clear independent state-law ESA protection identified.

That does not mean an Oregon resident has no accommodation rights. It means federal law remains especially important and Oregon’s state-law treatment is less explicit than in our blue and green states.

Pennsylvania enacted the Assistance and Service Animal Integrity Act in 2018. The Act defines an assistance animal by reference to an animal that qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or applicable local law.

Pennsylvania therefore has its own state framework dealing with assistance animals and documentation. But the underlying qualification standard is expressly linked to federal or local accommodation law. That’s the pattern we’ve consistently classified as 🟡 Federal-linked protection.

Rhode Island’s current fair-housing statute contains a narrower “personal assistive animal” provision associated with specially trained animals.

Rhode Island lawmakers have repeatedly considered expanding state law concerning emotional support animals. In 2026, H8215 made significant legislative progress, including passage in the Rhode Island House. But the proposal did not complete the legislative process and become law.

So as of our September 2026 review, Rhode Island still does not have the kind of enacted independent ESA protection that would justify moving it into our green or blue categories. For now: 🔴 No clear independent state-law ESA protection identified. But Rhode Island is absolutely a state we’ll be watching.

South Carolina has its own Fair Housing Law broadly prohibiting disability discrimination. It also has separate provisions involving trained assistance dogs. South Carolina law additionally regulates aspects of ESA documentation and misrepresentation.

But regulating ESA documentation is not necessarily the same thing as independently creating the underlying substantive housing right. We did not identify sufficiently clear South Carolina authority establishing an independent state housing right for an untrained emotional support animal separate from the federal framework.

So South Carolina remains 🔴 No clear independent state-law ESA protection identified.

South Dakota independently addresses assistance animals in its landlord-tenant laws. SDCL §43-32-33 includes emotional support and therapy animals within the state’s housing framework rather than limiting protection to traditionally trained service dogs.

South Dakota also has its own documentation and anti-fraud provisions. That gives qualifying residents a state-law framework independent of HUD’s current administrative enforcement posture.

Tennessee independently recognizes support animals, including animals providing disability-related emotional support, within its landlord-tenant framework.

The state has also added documentation and anti-fraud provisions designed to distinguish legitimate accommodation requests from purchased paperwork that lacks a meaningful professional basis.

Because Tennessee law affirmatively recognizes support animals rather than simply pointing to whatever federal law currently protects, Tennessee belongs in our 🟢 Clear independent state protection category.

Texas does not have a standalone ESA housing statute, and Texas Human Resources Code Chapter 121 primarily addresses trained service animals. But that’s not the entire Texas story.

Texas has its own Texas Fair Housing Act, found in Property Code Chapter 301. Under Texas Property Code §301.025, disability discrimination includes refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when an accommodation may be necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Even more importantly for ESA owners, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs expressly lists allowing a service or emotional support animal despite a “no pets” policy as an example of a reasonable accommodation.

So the Lone Star State doesn’t have a neat standalone ESA statute defining everything in one place, but it does have its own state fair-housing framework and official state housing guidance recognizing emotional-support-animal accommodations. That’s why Texas belongs in our 🔵 Broader state-law protection category rather than red.

Texas also takes animal misrepresentation seriously. Human Resources Code §121.006 provides penalties for intentionally or knowingly representing an animal as an assistance animal or service animal when the animal is not specially trained or equipped to help a person with a disability.

Utah has had state legislation dealing specifically with support animals for many years. Its current law is found in Utah Code §26B-6-803, following recodification of the older Title 62A provisions.

Utah law provides state-level housing nondiscrimination protection involving a person with a disability and a service animal or support animal, while recognizing exclusions permitted under applicable federal law.

So although federal law still matters in determining the scope and exceptions, Utah has an affirmative state statutory housing protection rather than merely an anti-fraud law or a general disability clause. That keeps Utah in our 🟢 Clear independent state protection category.

Vermont is another state where reading only the statute can make things look more confusing than they really are. Vermont’s unfair-housing statute contains language concerning specially trained animals.

But the Vermont Human Rights Commission, the state agency responsible for enforcing Vermont’s fair-housing protections, has adopted rules expressly providing that a person cannot be refused an assistance animal in housing whether or not the animal has received special training. That is a very important distinction. It’s not merely an ESA website interpreting vague language; it’s Vermont’s own civil-rights authority explaining how the state’s housing law works.

Combined with Vermont’s reasonable-accommodation requirement, that gives the state meaningful independent protection for untrained assistance animals.

Virginia makes this one refreshingly straightforward.

The Virginia Fair Housing Law independently defines an “assistance animal” and expressly provides that an assistance animal is not required to be individually trained or certified. The definition includes animals providing emotional support or other assistance that alleviates symptoms or effects of a person’s disability.

In other words, Virginia actually wrote this into state law. No interpretive gymnastics required. 😅

RCW 49.60.040 narrowly defines “service animal” for certain purposes as a trained dog or miniature horse — but specifically provides that this narrow definition does not apply to Washington’s housing provisions in RCW 49.60.222 through 49.60.227.

Washington State Human Rights Commission guidance recognizes that an assistance animal used as a reasonable accommodation in housing does not need the same individual task training required of a public-access service animal.

West Virginia’s fair-housing statutes were reorganized in 2024. The old Fair Housing Act provisions in Chapter 5 were recodified into Chapter 16B, Article 18. That’s important because someone searching the old statutory location can easily stumble onto a “repealed” label and mistakenly conclude West Virginia eliminated its Fair Housing Act. It didn’t. The law moved.

West Virginia Code §16B-18-5 contains an explicit assistance-animal provision. The statute addresses reasonable accommodations, documentation of a disability-related need, and circumstances in which a request may be denied. Most importantly for this guide, the statute specifically recognizes documentation establishing that an assistance animal will provide disability-related assistance or emotional support.

So yes: West Virginia has real, current state-law protection. A housing provider may request permissible verification in appropriate circumstances. That doesn’t mean a legitimate request is fraudulent or invalid — documentation review can simply be part of the accommodation process.

Wisconsin makes the distinction extremely clear. Wisconsin Statute §106.50 independently defines an “emotional support animal” and specifically recognizes an animal that provides emotional support or other assistance related to a person’s disability.

Critically, Wisconsin law distinguishes an emotional support animal from a trained service animal. That gives Wisconsin an explicit state statutory foundation rather than forcing residents to rely solely on HUD’s administrative position.

Wyoming law expressly addresses assistance animals and recognizes them separately from traditional trained service animals. So Wyoming definitely isn’t a state that simply ignores ESAs.

But there is an important detail in the housing provision. Wyoming Statute §35-13-201(c) provides for the use of an assistance animal in housing in accordance with the federal Fair Housing Act. That wording matters for our classification system.

Wyoming has meaningful state statutes concerning assistance animals, including definitions and anti-misrepresentation provisions, but its affirmative housing protection expressly links back to federal fair-housing law. For consistency with states such as Alabama, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, Wyoming therefore fits better as 🟡 Federal-linked protection.