Thoughts on Service Dog Certification
For those we love and care about, who suffer from a disability, we would do anything to support them in overcoming the adversities they face, without a second thought. The mitigation of a disability comes at a cost, whether in time, money, or energy, but love doesn’t always ask for receipts. In the past century, progress has been made in technology, medicine, and law, allowing people with disabilities to enter into the public spaces with more confidence and success. One example of that progress is the training of service dogs. Public spaces responsible for accommodating service dogs and their handlers are well aware of the expenditures it must make to allow entry, being under an affirmative obligation to remove barriers to access.[1] Their interest in authenticity of service dogs is understandable.
The federal government currently does not and will not certify service dogs. Such has been counterproductive to the aims of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and has left one of its most vulnerable sub-sectors of population vulnerable to defending their right to public accommodations in addition to the challenges they ordinarily face. Following is an analysis of one example of a defense of right of access for a person with a disability and her service dog. This blog post will examine the position of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its application in a recent case, and then will show why a federal certification of service dogs would be another step in allowing people with disabilities to overcome barriers. It will then turn to exploring the impacts of the case on North Dakota.
(Note: this blog article is opinion only and reflects only personal opinion about the state of affairs in the general public. It is not legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. Further, the views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author in a personal capacity and do not represent the views of any employer, organization, or other entity. This content is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute lobbying or an attempt to influence legislation. No communications on this blog are intended to contact, direct, or solicit any government official or legislator for advocacy purposes. Readers with legal questions must seek an attorney licensed in their respective jurisdiction.)
I. Case Facts
In 2018, plaintiff C.L. filed a complaint in the Central District of California which challenged Del Amo Hospital’s (“Del Amo”) refusal to admit Aspen, a bichon-poodle, on C.L.’s visits to the hospital.[2] C.L., a victim of abuse, was diagnosed with, among other things, post-traumatic stress syndrome and dissociative identity disorder. In response to a deterioration in her psychological condition, her therapist encouraged her to obtain a service dog. Through research, C.L. discovered that she could obtain and train her own service dog in lieu of spending a large sum of money on a pre-trained service dog.
In 2013, C.L. obtained Aspen and enrolled her in a local general dog-training program. In addition, she used a service-dog training book by expert Katie Gonzales, director of Little Angels Service Dogs (“Little Angels”; a nonprofit service dog training organization), to train Aspen to perform specific tasks to mitigate symptoms of her disability. Aspen was trained to wake her from nightmares, interrupt self-injury, and alert C.L. to take medication. C.L. attended a seminar at Little Angels and maintained regular communication with Little Angels trainers, who provided feedback and answered training-related questions.
On at least seven occasions, C.L.’s efforts to bring Aspen to Del Amo were frustrated; the clinicians determined that Aspen’s presence would interfere with C.L.’s therapy by allowing her to rely on Aspen instead of learning coping skills. These denials were the subject of C.L.’s complaint. Gonzales provided expert testimony in the litigation; she observed C.L. and Aspen in public and it was her opinion that Aspen was a fully trained service dog because Aspen could demonstrate trained tasks and comport with service dog behavioral expectations in various public spaces. Little Angels offers certification for service dogs, but Gonzales testified that she could not certify Aspen through Little Angels, which would require more rigorous and costly efforts. Gonzales also testified that the legal standard under the ADA is more basic than that of Little Angels and Aspen meets the ADA standard.
The district court entered judgment in favor of Del Amo because C.L. had been unable to show that Aspen was a service dog.[3] It reasoned this based on a lack of certification by Little Angels and lack of third-party testimony from a time frame during which the denials occurred.[4] The appeal to the 9th Circuit followed and included several service dog and disability rights organizations as amici.
II. Policy Background
A. Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act embodies the precept that “physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination…”[5] The act states as its purpose four main goals:[6]
(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and
(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority … in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides detailed guidance promulgated by the various departments and agencies of the federal government in line with these four goals. Service animal is defined in the CFR as “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability…The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability…”[7] In other words, general requirements.
B. Department of Justice Interpretation
As of 2010, the DOJ only recognizes dogs, regardless of breed, as a service animal.[8] Public accommodations are required by law to modify any policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service dog by an individual with a disability unless the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or is not housebroken.[9] Service dogs are allowed to accompany their handlers anywhere any other member of the public is allowed to go, with very few exceptions.[10] There can be no doubt that some public accommodations may find the admission of a service dog to be burdensome, especially when those businesses are not allowed to charge fees when they might otherwise for admission of a pet.[11]
Such an exemption is not one the federal government will certify. Instead, the government takes a laissez-faire approach, allowing public accommodations to ask two questions in ascertaining the legitimacy of a service dog; (1) if the dog is required because of a disability and (2) what task or work the dog has been trained to do.[12] They are prohibited from requesting documentation that the dog has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal.[13]
The DOJ doesn’t just prohibit the request for documentation but has strongly rejected any requirement that a service dog be formally certified at all:[14]
The [DOJ] has rejected this approach and will not impose any type of formal training requirements or certification process, but will continue to require that service animals be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. …the [DOJ] has determined that such a modification would not serve the full array of individuals with disabilities who use service animals, since individuals with disabilities may be capable of training, and some have trained, their service animal to perform tasks or do work to accommodate their disability. A training and certification requirement would increase the expense of acquiring a service animal and might limit access to animals for individuals with limited financial resources.
This position provided the main foundation for the court’s holding in C.L.[15] Furthermore, the DOJ rejected allowing a public accommodation to request documentation in cases where a disability is not noticeable, such as in a psychiatric disability, and an individual desires entry for a dog that may or may not be a service dog.[16] The DOJ concluded that this would “require persons with disabilities to obtain medical documentation and carry it with them anytime they seek to engage in ordinary activities of daily life in their communities”, and that “a documentation requirement of this kind would be unnecessary, burdensome, and contrary to the spirit, intent, and mandates of the ADA.”[17]
III. Analysis
A. C.L. v. Del Amo
The main issue on appeal was whether or not Aspen was a service dog at the time of trial. The court frames it more importantly as whether it is a misinterpretation of the ADA to require a service dog meet formal certification requirements.[18] It held that the ADA prohibits certification requirements for service dogs for three reasons: (1) the ADA defines service dogs functionally, (2) the DOJ has consistently rejected a formal certification requirement and (3) allowing a person with a disability to self-train a service dog furthers the goals of the ADA.
(1) The court correctly reasons that, under the ADA, a service animal must perform tasks that are trained and outside the natural behaviors of a dog.[19] It viewed the tasks C.L. had trained Aspen to do, such as waking her from nightmares and interrupting self-injurious behavior, to be outside of the natural behavior of dogs. It referenced these tasks, in conjunction with C.L.’s psychiatric diagnosis, to be under the ADA.
(2) The court looks to DOJ regulations and commentary on service animals. It references two Federal Register documents to conclude that the DOJ specifically rejects a recommendation to adopt a certification requirement.[20]
(3) The court correctly notes that the ADA seeks to eliminate discrimination faced by people with disabilities in everyday life.[21] It concludes simply: “A certification requirement would have negative consequences for persons with psychiatric disabilities who rely on service animals”.[22] The sentences that follow in the opinion are a series of sources and studies that show that service animals can mitigate the difficulties faced by people with disabilities, but the court offers nothing to support its conclusion.
The court’s holding does not follow from premise (1); though the ADA does in fact define service dogs functionally, the presence of a functional definition does not mean a dog, having met the standards of that functional requirement, is not certifiable nor that certification would be inappropriate. Its reasoning as to (3) meets a similar fate; self-training does in fact further the goals of the ADA with regard to promoting access and independence for people with disabilities. Here, there is no dispute as to the benefits Aspen was providing to C.L. In fact, Del Amo admits that C.L. relies on Aspen rather than developing her own coping skills.[23]
The holding in C.L. follows only from (2), that it is obligated to follow the DOJ’s interpretation of the ADA. The court then effectively rejects the interpretation by sending it back to the district court to “consider whether C.L.’s testimony regarding her self-training of Aspen, coupled with Katie Gonzalez’s expert testimony, was sufficient to show that Aspen was ‘more likely than not’ a qualified service dog at the time of trial”.[24] Thus, the court held that requiring documents authenticating that Aspen is a service dog is inappropriate under the ADA, then remanded to authenticate Aspen with a judgment document from the district court; such certification process only cost years of litigation and thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees.[25]
B. Problems with application of the DOJ interpretation
The DOJ’s ultimate conclusions are arguably erroneous. Its rejection of a formal training requirement inappropriately assumes that certification of training is expensive and that training requirements cannot be standardized due to the “array” of individual needs. C.L. is an example to the contrary; Gonzales’ testimony confirmed that Aspen met the standards under the ADA, notwithstanding that C.L. never enrolled Aspen in formal service dog training. Its rejection of documentation requests rests on the assumption that the kinds of documentation needed to authenticate a service dog is only that which is burdensome to obtain and carry around; such generalization is inappropriate – consider driver’s licenses, for one simple example.
Refusing to federally certify service dogs results in four problems which cause people with disabilities who have service animals to be unnecessarily discriminated against, in violation of the ADA’s purposes.[26] First, financial and legal burdens are far higher for individuals with disabilities who have an authentic service dog. Second, it has allowed inconsistencies across the different departments of government and made the ascertainment of service animal legitimacy unnecessarily complex. Third, its refusal to provide a federally recognized certification standard is inconsistent with other ADA sections which do incorporate federally recognized certification. Fourth, it has allowed for fraudulent misrepresentation of service animals, which increases the stigmas of the people with disabilities, especially unseen ones, who have legitimate service dogs.
For the purposes of this blog, “federal certification” can mean an approval and certification through a federal department. It can also mean a federal regulation that provides service dogs and their handlers a state-issued certification, or federal guidance that recognizes independent certifiers who comport with federal standards. This essay declines to address whether a federal certification ought to be voluntary or mandatory, though notes that principles of freedom of choice and liberty tend to weigh in favor of voluntary certification.
i. Financial and legal burdens on people with disabilities
The DOJ’s refusal to provide federal certification to authenticate legitimate service dogs places undue burdens on people with disabilities. This is immediately evident in C.L., in which plaintiff’s counsel sought $136,508 for deposition, expert witness, and other fees,[27] in her battle to get Aspen authenticated as an ADA-qualified service dog. Acquisition of service dogs is already costly and time consuming[28] and obtaining certification through private entities as preventative insurance against potential legal disputes puts persons with disabilities as the mercy of private certifiers, who do not always discern between authentic service dogs and subscribers certifying their pet.[29] Further, private licensure may subject its license-holder to potential criticism or social disapproval, based on the perceived authenticity of the licensing organization.
By contrast, obtaining federal certifications are relatively inexpensive and consist of applications containing the required materials that authenticate that the applicate is entitled to the certifiable exemptions or privileges. Indeed, the federal government has shown a willingness to provide certification in various other sectors of American society: passports cost less than $200 and last 10 years;[30] tax-stamps for class-three firearms cost $200 and approved applications confer a right to possess the class-three firearm applied for;[31] pesticide applicator requirements are promulgated by the federal government and confer the rights to purchase and apply restricted pesticides under a state-issued license.[32] Possession of a government-issued service dog certification can dispel suspicions and might open the door for federal grants, subsidies, tax discounts, and qualified reception of contributions from local charities. In addition, government certification may provide a route to Medicaid and other insurance coverage for service dogs.[33]
Federal certification can serve an evidentiary function in legal disputes. As of March 2025, all but two of the fifty states have specific laws against interference or injury to service dogs, including North Dakota.[34] Crucial in cases where a service dog’s access or interference with a service dog is at issue is qualification of the service animal.[35]Additionally, there is a serious question whether a non-ADA qualified animal, such as an emotional support animal or companion animal, can activate the same statutes. Arguably, animals of that latter classification should be limited to statutory protections afforded pets, but not legitimate service dogs. Clarity provided by federal licensure would be valued by all interested parties, including defendants.
In a legal dispute where the amount of damages for injury or death to a service dog is being calculated, a plaintiff will have a higher burden to justify a recoverable amount, when an amount is not provided statutorily, absent a federal certification. While self-training is likely to be less expensive to a person with a disability than the alternative modes of obtaining a service dog,[36] the recoverable damages in tort should be equivalent to typical costs of obtaining minimally trained service dog who is federally licensable, rather than the actual costs of self-training a functional service dog.[37] The self-trainer may have dedicated many hours and efforts toward training that are difficult to quantify. The negligent defendant has a potential scope of damages ranging from a couple hundred dollars to tens of thousands the same breach of duty of care. It shouldn’t be the good or bad luck of the offender that a negligent action happened to impact a less or more expensive service dog.
ii. Internal governmental inconsistency
The lack of federal certification has given rise to at least three different federal standards for assistance animals, generally.[38] Aside from the DOJ’s position and regulations, two others are particularly worthy of analysis: the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) guidance related to the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) guidance on the Fair Housing Act (FHA).[39] Other working dog certification will be summarized.
The DOT requires a handler to submit written answers to a different series of questions related to service dogs on flights.[40] Section A includes the information on the Handler.[41] Section B exacts detailed information regarding the vaccination status of the service animal. Section C regards the tasks the animal has been trained, but in lieu of asking the second ADA-allowable question, what task the dog performs, it requires the Handler to provide the contact information of the “Task Trainer or Training Organization”. Section C Instructions indicates that the Handler’s contact information is suitable here if the Handler is also the trainer. Section D requires the Handler to affirm that the service animal has been trained to “behave in a public setting”.[42] Section E covers other miscellaneous agreements.
HUD has produced guidance for housing providers related to service and assistance animals broadly.[43] It cites the traditional approach to determining whether or not an animal is a service dog but does not permit a housing provider to inquire the two allowable question when it is “readily apparent” that the dog is trained to do work or perform tasks. Crucially, however, in cases where the housing provider is permitted to ask the two statutory questions,
If the answer to either question is “no” or “none,” the animal does not qualify as a service animal under federal law but may be a support animal or other type of assistance animal that needs to be accommodated.[44]
HUD then goes on to describe that,
Animals commonly kept in households…such as a dog, cat, small bird, rabbits, hamster, gerbil, other rodent, fish, turtle, or other small domesticated animal that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes, then the reasonable accommodation should be granted…[if requestor-provided information shows] there is a disability-related need for the animal.[45]
Furthermore, “[u]nique animals…that [are] not commonly kept in households as described” must be accommodated if the requestor can prove the disability-related therapeutic need for the specific animal or the specific type of animal.[46]
Consider a discrepancy in regulation: the DOJ has rejected the use non-dog animals as protected service animals,[47] and has accepted the American Veterinary Medical Association’s position advising against the use of monkeys as service animals, on the grounds that “their behavior can be unpredictably aggressive and violent without notice or provocation”, as well as “animal welfare concerns, and the potential for serious injury and zoonotic [animal to human disease transmission] risks”.[48] In direct contradiction, the HUD provides an example of a monkey as an assistance animal which housing providers must allow, on the grounds that a monkey can be trained to do work or perform tasks that cannot be performed by a dog.[49]
HUD appears to derive[50] its authority to expand the definitions and accommodation requirements under the ADA from 28 CFR § 100.204(a), which provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit, including public and common use areas.
In doing so, HUD disregards the statutory requirements the DOJ has identified as controlling the legal requirements for service dogs and limitations it has imposed. Put differently, which statute controls? Can a person with a disability who uses a service monkey demand entry to a bowling alley under 28 CFR § 100.204(a) and cite to HUD’s interpretation of the statute to claim that a service monkey is a protected class? What, then, is the bowling alley to make of the DOJ’s explicit rejection of monkeys as a protected service animal under 28 CFR § 36.104?[51] This inconsistency does not just create uncertainty for housing providers, but also for the general population, who observe that a variety of animals are legally protected in some situations but not in others. A federal certification can provide clarity for both handler and public business in these situations.
Police dogs are typically required to be certified by state statute, but certification is not dispositive in criminal prosecutions.[52] Likewise, explosives and accelerant detection dogs usually must obtain certification when used for such detection purposes, according to state statutes.[53] Cadaver and tracking dogs need not be certified, but evidentiary status is supported by training records and certifications if questioned at trial.[54] In these dog uses, certification is not federally required, but these are distinguishable from people with disabilities who use service dogs because use of police and tracking dogs benefits the government, not individuals. As such, a defendant can challenge their legitimacy in exercising due process rights. Such ability to challenge working dog legitimacy may not be defensible under due process rights when the working dog benefits a private party who has a disability. Nevertheless, coherent certification requirements appear to be fundamental for at least two other types of working dogs, even if disputable.
iii. Disability-related certification in other sections of the ADA
The refusal to issue certification for service dogs is inconsistent with the federal government’s provisions in other ADA-protected areas, most synonymously, mobility-impaired parking and complementary paratransit services. Under federal statute, a public accommodation is allowed to seek “credible assurance” of a mobility-impairment.[55] This is defined as “State-issued disability parking placard or State-issued proof of disability”.[56] North Dakota, for example, requires a Qualified Medical Provider to complete the entirety of page two of its mobility-impairment parking application.[57] The exemption here is preferential parking at the exclusion of non-mobility-impaired patrons as a method to mitigate the adversity faced by someone with a mobility-impairing disability. Additionally, such a certification provides dispositive proof that the person with a disability is rightly entitled to utilize preferential parking, or lack thereof and the fraudster is entitled to a $200 fine and maybe a towing service.
Another example of an ADA protected accommodation that statutorily includes certification of eligibility is the paratransit services.[58] The ADA requires public transit services to provide complementary paratransit services to individuals who have disabilities and are otherwise unable to access the fixed route systems offered by public entities. In order to establish eligibility, a person with a disability must provide requested materials in an application. The paratransit authority will then provide, in writing, documentation (i.e. certification), that an individual is “ADA Paratransit Eligible”, and may require recertification at regular intervals.[59]
Like the mobility-parking certification, the paratransit certification is beneficial both to individuals with disabilities and to the paratransit service providers. It ensures that only individuals who legitimately require paratransit services actually receive those services. It provides a government-supported certification that is disallows eligibility to be disputed if an individual with a disability is discriminated against by the paratransit authority. It provides security for the paratransit service providers, who need not assume responsibility for subjectively determining the eligibility of a paratransit user. It protects the privacy of individuals with disabilities, who are not obligated to describe their conditions, needs, or therapies, to the various drivers, assistants, and employees of the paratransit services, having already disclosed that information to the eligibility authority.
iv. Misrepresentation and fraud
Perhaps one of the most pressing current issues with regard to the need for standardized certification is the prevalence of misrepresentation of service dogs. While the misrepresentation may be fraudulent or mistaken innocence,[60] such misrepresentation is harmful to people with disabilities as well as the misrepresented animals by subjecting untrained and unequipped pets to stressful and overstimulating public environments.[61] Setting aside the questionable morality of their own maltreatment, such pets may act aggressively toward other people or toward legitimate service dogs occupying the same public space.[62] Furthermore, such misrepresentations may lead to negative public views of legitimate service dogs.
The fraudster is faced with only two questions, both of which aim to distinguish between legitimate service animals and misrepresented pets, in order to justify expenditures made by the public accommodation in admitting a protected animal only.[63] The first, whether an animal is required because of a disability, requires only a “yes” or “no” answer, and disallows verification by private party. The second has no additional effect on the possibility of verification, since the fraudster is disincentivized from truthful answer, having falsely answered the more essential question in the affirmative.[64] Overcoming the modest safeguards found in these questions, the fraudster is conferred with benefits, including avoiding pet fees in hotels and airlines and bringing their pets along with them into public spaces.[65]
As of March 2025, at least 34 states have enacted express laws against fraud and misrepresentation of service animals, including North Dakota.[66] Similar to the legal challenges for injury or death to service dogs, a lack of federally issued certification subjects an express ADA protection to disputability. Both legitimate service dog handlers and their fraudulent counterparts will have a burden to prove legitimacy when prosecuted under a state fraudulence statute, a burden that is only appropriately placed upon a fraudster. However, the fraudster can certify their pet with relative ease through online companies, where proof of tasks or disability is not always required.[67]
Furthermore, the primary element of such prosecution is the disability status of the handler, rather than the credentials of the questioned dog.[68] Such an element leads to absurd results best shown by a simple hypothetical. Consider two individuals, both with disabilities, one with type 1 diabetes mellitus, an unseen disability, and the other with a mobility-impairment requiring the use of a wheelchair. Each appears to use a service dog, but only the person with diabetes has a service dog that provides real alerts for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, whereas the person with a mobility-impairment fraudulently claims their untrained pet as service dog, in order to benefit from companionship and avoid pet fees. In this hypothetical, the fraudster is far more likely to be free of suspicion while the legitimate handler with diabetes may be unfairly subjected to suspicion.[69] Federal certification can support the deterring effects of state fraudulent misrepresentation statutes by providing dispositive evidence of fraud, where no conclusive evidence currently exists and must be constructed from scratch in each case.
IV. Impact in North Dakota
The lack of a federal certification for service dogs has impacts in North Dakota, including the partial foreclosure of options for meeting its 2022-2024 Strategic Health Plan, including addressing major health conditions faced by North Dakotans and increasing access to routine healthcare support in rural areas of the state. In addition, the lack of federal certification creates a disputable element in a state without an intermediate appellate court.
A. North Dakota’s 2022-2024 Strategic Health Plan
In its 2022-2024 Strategic Health Plan, the State of North Dakota has outlined a series of health-related objectives it has for the near future for the state.[70] Among these are the psychiatric and physical conditions including reducing suicide-related attempts and fatalities,[71] substance abuse,[72] and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes.[73] Service dogs have shown to be beneficial mitigating psychiatric disabilities, notably Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),[74] which North Dakota has taken a special interest to support through a grant for veterans for acquiring a service dog.[75] In addition, studies have indicated that service dogs can be cost saving and effective in physical services and diabetic alerts.[76]
North Dakota also has an expressed goal of improving access to care in underserved and rural areas.[77] A largely rural state, with less than a million people, 38 of North Dakota’s 53 counties are considered frontier, or very sparsely populated.[78] Home and Community Based Services provide non-institutional services to people with disabilities in North Dakota; as of 2022, those with developmental disabilities who receive these services are estimated to be at 4,802 and reside in every county in North Dakota and 1,613 residents in all but three counties were receiving Service Payments to Elderly and Disabled.[79] By contrast, medically fragile children, residents with Autism Spectrum Disorders in need of services, and those receiving expanded Service Payments to Elderly and Disabled were tending to concentrate toward the urban counties of Burleigh (Bismarck), Ward (Minot), and Cass (Fargo).[80]
This study suggests that urban counties are still epicenters of care and that rural counties are often unequipped to meet specialized needs. While in some respects, the migration from rural to urban counties in pursuit of specialized healthcare is inevitable for some individuals, the possibility remains that a service dog could support independence for others, who wish to maintain rural residence, by providing the needed lifestyle adaptations.[81] Additionally, for North Dakotan high schoolers contemplating attending college, both rural and urban, a service dog can provide a layer of protection and support for young adults with disabilities to incentivize attendance at one of the various North Dakota higher education institutions without having to travel very far.
B. Litigation of Service Dogs in North Dakota
As recognition for the efficacy of service dogs grow and more people acquire service dogs, disputes will inevitably arise. Recently, several incidents have arisen in North Dakota and the Midwest region, including misrepresentation and injuries to service dogs.[82] Though the disputes often settle, the rise in dispute prevalence increases the chances that a dispute will find its way into a North Dakota court, whether a state court or federal court; a lack of federal certification will mean a steeper uphill battle for the handler, should a handler’s legitimacy be challenged.[83]
There remains a possibility that a state can offer an optional and inexpensive form of state-issued certification of service dogs that would serve the same evidentiary and authentication functions as a federal form of certification. Some states currently do, but North Dakota is not one of them. However, those certifications may only be cognizable within the state borders or in state courts since they are not federally promulgated. Since ADA violations can be brought in or removed to a federal venue, state certifications may have questionable dispositive validity in federal court, especially if the parties are diverse between states with different certification offerings, but more research is needed to support this claim.
Conclusion
It is clear that the federal government has failed to enact a “clear and comprehensive” national structure to support people with disabilities who use service dogs, as well as creating “enforceable standards” to assist the public with clarity and reduce discrimination.[84] It has given up its “central role” to private certifying agencies, and has determined that it is unnecessary to “invoke the congressional sweep of authority” to battle discrimination faced by those with disabilities and who use service dogs.[85] C.L. and various other cases document the challenges courts face with such a failure and they archive the burdens people with disabilities have when trying to legitimize their service dogs.
A federal certification requiring affirmations from medical providers of both a disability and the mitigating functions of a service dog on such a disability, as well as an affirmation that the service dog has been acclimated to public spaces and trained for behavioral management and against incontinence, is well within the scope of the ADA. Such certification would reduce the possibilities of misrepresentation and fraud, offer dispositive evidence of legitimacy in court, and eliminate the need for any public questioning or need for public accommodations to embark on rendering a judgement as to whether or not a service animal is legitimate.
Much like Anakin Skywalker’s fall from grace, where the absence of a clear, unified structure left him vulnerable to both his flaws and external manipulation, the federal government’s failure to implement a consistent, comprehensive certification process for service dogs leaves the system open to fraud, misinterpretation, and undue hardship for those who rely on them.
[1] Stephanie Berger, Article: Disability “Identity Theft,” Unmasked: Exploring Recent False Claims of Disability, the Harm, and Potential Solutions, 32 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 361, 364 (2022).
[2] C.L. v. Del Amo Hosp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244250 (C.D. Cal.); C.L. v. Del Amo Hop., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150838 (C.D. Cal.).
[3] C.L. v. Del Amo Hop., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150838, ¶¶ 51-55 (C.D. Cal.).
[4] Id. ¶¶ 51-54.
[5] 42 USC § 12101(a)(1).
[6] Id. § 12101(b).
[7] 28 CFR § 36.104.
[8] 28 CFR § 36.104; 28 CFR § 36.302(c)(9) furthers this to include miniature horses. For the purposes of this essay, “service dog” will be used, but the term will incorporate miniature horse as the only exception.
[9] 28 CFR § 36.302 (c)(1)-(2).
[10] Id. (c)(7); exceptions such as operating rooms (75 FR 56236, 56272).
[11] Id. (c)(8).
[12] Id. (c)(6). There is some friction between asking what tasks a service animal performs, as a method to authenticate it, and the limitations on inquiries about the extent or nature of a disability under, for instance, 28 CFR § 36.311. Some tasks, if divulged, would inevitably lead to conclusion about the nature of the disability.
[13] Id. (c)(6). See C.L., 992 F.3d at 915.
[14] 75 FR 56236, 56272. State statutes sometimes reflect similar language. Florida, Fla. Stat. § 413.08, for example, provides that “Documentation that the service animal is trained is not a precondition for providing service to an individual accompanied by a service animal.”
[15] 992 F.3d at 911.
[16] 75 FR 56236, 56272.
[17] Id.
[18] C.L. v. Del Amo Hosp., Inc., 992 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2021).
[19] Id. at 911.
[20] Id. at 911-13.
[21] 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a).
[22] C.L., 992 F.3d at 914.
[23] From Del Amo’s defense, that the service dog fundamentally alters the nature of the therapy C.L. was receiving, it is strange to see why C.L. would want to undermine her own therapy. It would seem that arriving at the point of not needing Aspen’s services from having learned coping skills would be a clinical success.
[24] Id. at 915.
[25] See Recent cases: Disability Law – Americans with Disabilities Act – Ninth Circuit Holds that Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits imposing certification requirement on animal who meets functional definition of “service dog.”, C.L. v. Del Amo Hospital, Inc., 992 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2021), 135 Harv. L. Rev. 2211, 2214.
[26] 42 USC § 12101(a)(1) and (b)(1) – (4).
[27] C.L. v. Del Amo Hops., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230688, 16 (C.D. Cal.).
[28] C.L., 993 F.3d at 906 n. 1.
[29] One representative of an organization indicated that “there is no proof required” in order to obtain service dog certification, with a yearly subscription of $189. Consider 17 M.R.S. § 1314-A (Maine), where knowingly creating and providing documents falsely representing than an animal is a service animal is a civil violation with fine. Certainly, that documents are false is a discoverable matter, but how an infringement of this statute is alleged in the first place is a different matter altogether, for the consequences of making a false allegation could itself be criminalized as an interference under 17 M.R.S. § 1314 would outweigh the costs of acquiescing to the misrepresented animal. For a case that pushes the issue even farther than C.L. by including a private certification component, See Stalder v. Colo. Mesa Univ., 2024 COA 29 (Colo. App.)(Plaintiff establishes genuine dispute of material fact where a dog, apparently mostly untrained, could nonetheless be registered through USAServiceDogRegistration.com; like C.L., the case was ultimately remanded to determine whether or not Ruger was a service dog).
[30] 22 USC § 211a is the statute that proscribes federal issuance of passports; see travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-passport/card.html/
[31] See U.S. Department of Justice, Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm, https://www.atf.gov/file/61546/download. July 2025 update; new rates may apply.
[32] 40 CFR §§ 171.1-171.11; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
[33] See, e.g., Burnam v. DSHS, 115 Wn. App. 435 (Wash. Ct. App., 2003)(service dogs are neither “durable medical equipment” nor “prosthetic devices” and thus cannot qualify for Medicaid coverage).
[34] Appendix A. See also Sandra D. Dawson, Note: Protecting a special class of animal: an examination of and recommendations for enacting dog guide protection statutes, 37 Conn. L. Rev. 575-78. A trend among these laws is a growing concern for not only interference generally, but also attacks by uncontrolled animals; see, e.g., Cal Penal Code § 600.2 (Injury or death of guide, signal, or service dog caused by another dog).
[35] Hence, the purpose of the remand in C.L.; see also, e.g, Mission Working Dogs v. Brookfield Props. Retail, Inc., 2025 Dist. LEXIS 41134, 134 (D.C. Me.); Stalder v. Colo. Mesa Univ., 2024 COA 29 (Colo. Ct. App.); Vaughan v. Rent-A-Center Inc., 2009 Dist. LEXIS 20747, 29 (S.D. Ohio); Green v. Housing Auth., 994 F.Supp. 1253, 1255 (D. Or., 1998), among others.
[36] See C.L., 992 F.3d at 905, 905 n. 1.
[37] Statutory penalties for damages to service dogs can be limited. South Carolina, for example limits penalties for injury, disability, or death to a service animal (acting with reckless disregard), to be fined not more than $2,500 (S.C. Code Ann § 47-3-940), vastly too minimal for the costs associated with even a self-trained service dog that is legitimate. Additionally, there are costs resulting from the absence of the mitigating benefits of the service dog that varies depending on the tasks the dog performed and how to replace those mitigations.
[38] As well as four different “legal context” definitions of assistance animals: “assistance animal”, “service animal”, “emotional support animals” (itself having three separate definitions), and “therapy animal”. AVMA Public Policy/Animal Welfare Division, Assistance Animals: Rights of Access and the Problem of Fraud, 5-6 (February 2022).
[39] See Tiffany Lee, Article: Criminalizing Fake Service Dogs: Helping or Hurting Legitimate Handlers?, 23 Animal L. 325, 333 (2017)(“Both the [ACAA] and the [FHA] have different standards for designating which animals are given access and require documentation to secure access to housing and aircraft”).
[40] U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation Form, 2105-0576.
[41] Interestingly, Section A only requires an affirmation that the service dog is for a passenger with a disability; if the person completing the form does not have a disability, they can theoretically complete the form without violating 18 USC § 1001, which makes it an offense to lie on this type of documentation.
[42] Private certification companies often include a Public Access Test, or similar, which accomplishes the requirements under Section D. This is not legally required under the ADA in other situations, though a public accommodation is allowed to exclude service dogs if they are not under control or housebroken.
[43] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FHEO-2020-01, (January 28, 2020).
[44] Id. at 7; underline original.
[45] Id. at 12.
[46] Id.
[47] 75 FR 56236, 56267.
[48] Id.
[49] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FHEO-2020-01, 13 (January 28, 2020).
[50] Id. at n. 38.
[51] Here, the monkey should not be admitted, but this can only be found with a thorough legal analysis in both contexts and is not readily accessible information to either handlers or to public businesses.
[52] See, e.g., S.D. Codified Laws § 23-3-35.4; See, e.g., Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013).
[53] See, e.g., 70 Okl. St. § 3311(B)(9); See, e.g., Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Accelerant and Explosives Detection Canines, www.atf.gov.
[54] See, e.g., Van Pel v. State, 202 So. 3d 707 (Ala. Crim. App., 2015).
[55] 28 CFR § 36.311(c)(1).
[56] 28 CFR § 36.311(c)(1).
[57] North Dakota Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle, Application for Mobility-Impaired Parking Permit, SFN 2886 (8-2024), dot.nd.gov; NDCC 39-01-15.
[58] 49 CFR § 37.125.
[59] 49 CFR § 37.125(e) – (f).
[60] 75 FR 56236, 56265
[61] Educated Canines Assisting with Disabilities, Fake Service Dogs: The Growing Problem and its Impact, ecad1.org, https://www.ecad1.org/index.php/resources/blog/212-fake-service-dogs-the-growing-problem-and-its-impact; AVMA Public Policy/Animal Welfare Division, Assistance Animals: Rights of Access and the Problem of Fraud, 10 (February 2022).
[62] See, e.g., N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-11-5 (New Mexico): “The legislature finds that unrestrained animals constitute a danger to qualified service animals and public safety”.
[63] Washington law specifies that an enforcement officer can investigate an allegation of misrepresentation but is only allowed to ask the two questions and may not request documentation (Rev. Code Wash. § 49.60.214). Only upon a refusal to answer those questions is the law enforcement officer allowed to issue a civil infraction or require a vacate of the premises.
[64] Save for the rare case where the fraudster slips in the answer to the second and the legally-savvy inquirer catches such a slip. Even in such case, the costs and risks of disputing, and the possibility of mistake, make the liability of ADA violation too great to motivate a public accommodation from challenging entry, even for cases that are likely fraudulent. This also raises optics issues on whether a public business wants the potentially negative social media attention associated with challenging a patron and their companion animal (pet or otherwise). For a case suspiciously resembling this footnote, see Stalder v. Colo. Mesa Univ., 2024 COA 29 (Colo. Ct. App.).
[65] AVMA Public Policy/Animal Welfare Division, Assistance Animals: Rights of Access and the Problem of Fraud, 10 (February 2022); Stephanie Berger, Article: Disability “Identity Theft,” Unmasked: Exploring Recent False Claims of Disability, the Harm, and Potential Solutions, 32 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 361, 364 (2022).
[66] Appendix A. Some states without state laws may have cities with ordinances or other types of guidance.
[67] One representative of an organization indicated that “there is no proof required” in order to obtain service dog certification, with a yearly subscription of $189. See US Service Animals, The Official US Service Animal & Support Animal (ESA) Registry, https://usserviceanimals.org/.
[68] Tiffany Lee, Article: Criminalizing Fake Service Dogs: Helping or Hurting Legitimate Handlers?, 23 Animal L. 325, 338 (2017). Note that the first question of the two allowable is designed to establish whether or not there is a disability. For an alternative example, consider Va. Code Ann. § 51.5-44 (Virginia), which provides dressing requirements for service dogs, such as a blaze orange leash, or vest identifying the dog as a service dog.
[69] Note that HUD includes two places where the observability or readily-apparency of the disability precludes inquiries. FHEO-2020-01, 6, 9. See also, e.g., Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 121.003(l), which provides that “[i]f a person’s disability is not readily apparent, for the purposes of admittance to a public facility with a service animal, a staff member or manager of the facility may [inquire via the two allowed questions]”.
[70] North Dakota Department of Health, Strategic Plan 2022-2024, https://www.hhs.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/DOH%20Legacy/PH%20administration/NDDoH%20Strategic%20Plan%20Document_final.pdf; The University of North Dakota School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Eighth Biennial Report 2025: Health Issues for the State of North Dakota, 11 (https://med.und.edu/about/publications/biennial-report/_files/docs/eighth-biennial-report-summary.pdf) recommends “continuation of the full implementation of the Strategic Plan for Health” above, affirming the current relevance of these health objectives.
[71] Id. at 8
[72] Id.
[73] Id. at 6.
[74] Leighton, S., Rodriguez, K., Zhuang, R., Jense, C., Miller, E., Sabbaghi, A., & O’Haire, M. Psychiatric service dog placements are associated with better daily psychosocial functioning for military veterans with psttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 16(Suppl 3), S707-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001543; Christine McCall, Kerry Rodriguez, Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, Laura Meis, Marguerite O’Haire, “A Part of Our Family”? Effects of Psychiatric Service Dogs on Quality of Life and Relationship Functioning in Military-Connected Couples, Mil Behav Health. 2020 Oct14:8(4):410-423. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2020.1825243.
[75] North Dakota Department of Veterans Affairs, Service Dog Grant for ND Veterans with PTSD, https://www.veterans.nd.gov/service-dog-grant-nd-veterans-ptsd.
[76] Lundqvist M, Alwin J, Levin L-A (2019) Certified service dogs – A cost-effectiveness analysis appraisal, PLoS ONE 14(9): e0219911. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219911.
[77] Strategic Health Plan 2022-2024, at 4 and 6.
[78] North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services, North Dakota HCBS Rate Study, 4 (2022) https://www.hhs.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/DHS%20Legacy/nd-hcbs-summary-demographic-utilization-data-2022-11-28.pdf.
[79] Id.
[80] Id.
[81] Mary Michelle Camp, The Use of Service Dogs as an Adaptive Strategy: A Qualitative Study, 55(5) American Journal of Occupational Therapy 509, 516 (Sept./Oct., 2001), doi: 10.5014/ajot.55.5.509.
[82] See, e.g., KFYR, Service Dog impersonations on the rise, Jud, North Dkaota, November 22, 2023; Valley News Live, Ulta settles dispute involving service animal at Fargo store, Fargo, North Dakota, June 28, 2022; and regionally, Adrian Carbajal, KOTA, Victim of dog attack asking for public to stop faking service dog vests, Rapid City, South Dakota, February 26, 2024.
[83] Hence, the purpose of the remand in C.L.; see also, e.g, Mission Working Dogs v. Brookfield Props. Retail, Inc., 2025 Dist. LEXIS 41134, 134 (D.C. Me.); Stalder v. Colo. Mesa Univ., 2024 COA 29 (Colo. Ct. App.); Vaughan v. Rent-A-Center Inc., 2009 Dist. LEXIS 20747, 29 (S.D. Ohio); Green v. Housing Auth., 994 F.Supp. 1253, 1255 (D. Or., 1998), among others.
[84] 42 USC § 12101(b)(1) and (2).
[85] Id. (3) and (4).
Appendix A
Table of State Laws regarding Interference/Injury and Misrepresentation of
Service Animals (as of March 2025)
Interference/Injury | Misrepresentation | |
Alabama | Code of Ala. §§ 13A-11-231; 233; 234 | Code of Ala. § 24-8A-4 |
Alaska | none | none |
Arizona | A.R.S. § 13-2910; § 11-1024(I) | A.R.S. § 11-1024(K) |
Arkansas | A.C.A. § 20-14-304 | A.C.A. § 20-14-310 |
California | Cal Pen Code § 600.5 | Cal Pen Code § 365.7 |
Colorado | C.R.S. 24-34-804(1)(d) | C.R.S. 18-13-107.7 |
Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-44(d) | none |
Delaware | 10 De. C. § 1041(1)(c)(2) | proposed Senate Bill 219 (2024) |
Florida | Fla. Stat. § 413.08(4) | Fla. Stat. § 413(9)(community service) |
Georgia | O.C.G.A. § 30-4-4 | none |
Hawaii | HRS § 711-1109.4 | HRS [§ 347-2.6] |
Idaho | Idaho Code § 18-5812 | Idaho Code § 18-5811A |
Illinois | 510 ILCS 70/4.04; 510 ILCS 70/7.15 | none |
Indiana | Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-46-3-11.5(b) | Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 22-9-7-12 |
Iowa | Iowa Code § 216C.11(2) | Iowa Code § 216C.11(3) |
Kansas | K.S.A. § 39-1103 | K.S.A. § 39-1112 |
Kentucky | KRS § 525.200, 205 | KRS § 383.085(6) |
Louisiana | La. R.S. § 46:1956 | La. R.S. § 46:1975 |
Maine | 17 M.R.S. § 1312 | 17 M.R.S. § 1314-A |
Maryland | Md. Criminal Law Code Ann. § 10-626(b) | none |
Massachusetts | ALM GL ch. 272, § 85B | proposed Bill H.4917 |
Michigan | MCLS § 750.50a(1) | MCLS § 752.62 |
Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 343.21 Subd. 8 | Minn. Stat. § 609.833 Subd. 2 |
Mississippi | Miss. Code Ann. § 97-41-23 | none |
Missouri | § 209.202 R.S.Mo. | § 209.204 R.S.Mo. |
Montana | none | 49-4-221, 222, MCA |
Nebraska | R.R.S. Neb. § 28-1009.01 | none |
Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 426.790 | Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 426.805 |
New Hampshire | RSA 167-D:8(I), (III) | RSA 167-D:8(II), (IV) |
New Jersey | N.J. Stat. § 2C:29-3.2 | N.J. Stat. § 10:5-29.5 |
New Mexico | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-11-5 | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-11-6 |
New York | NY CLS Penal §§ 242.05, 242.10, 242.15; NY CLS Agr & M § 123-b | NY CLS Agr & M § 118 |
North Carolina | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168-4.5 | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168-4.5 |
North Dakota | N.D. Cen. Code § 25-13-06 | N.D. Cent. Code § 25-13-02.2; § 47-16-07.6 |
Ohio | ORC Ann. 2921.321(C), (D) | none |
Oklahoma | 21 Okl. St. § 649.3 | none |
Oregon | ORS § 167.352 | none |
Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. § 5535 | 68 P.S. § 405.5 |
Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-9.1-3 | R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-9.1-3.1 |
South Carolina | S.C. Code Ann. §§ 47-3-930, 940, 950 | S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-980 |
South Dakota | S.D. Codified Laws § 40-1-38 | none |
Tennessee | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-216; 219 | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-304 |
Texas | Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 121.003(j) | Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 121.006 |
Utah | Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-307; § 78B-3-702 | none |
Vermont | 13 V.S.A. § 355 | none |
Virginia | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6588 | Va. Code Ann. § 51.5-44.1 |
Washington | Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9.91.170 | Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 49.60.214 |
West Virginia | W. Va. Code § 5-15-8 | W. Va. Code § 5-15-9(b) |
Wisconsin | Wis. Stat. § 951.097 | none |
Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. § 35-13-206 | Wyo. Stat. § 35-13-203 |
