Landlord Atlas

Can a landlord charge for a pet in Idaho, and what does the law require for an assistance animal?

Verified September 21, 2026 All Idaho topics →

Idaho has no pet-deposit statute and no deposit ceiling of any kind, so a refundable pet deposit is simply part of the security deposit and its size is a matter for the lease.

Cited to Idaho Code § 6-321 (1)-(4) and 17 more cited sources · Verified September 21, 2026

Anything a tenant deposits for a purpose other than rent counts as a security deposit, must come back within twenty-one days where the lease fixes no time and thirty days in any event with an itemized statement, and nothing may be kept for normal wear and tear. A pet fee is different: there is no cap, but any fee charged to a residential tenant must be reasonable, must be in the rental agreement, may not exceed the agreed amount, and needs thirty days' written notice to change, for agreements signed or renewed on or after July 1, 2023. Monthly pet rent sits outside that test altogether, because the fee section does not touch rent. No lease has to state a pet policy, and on a month-to-month tenancy a landlord can impose a new pet rule with fifteen days' written notice, which binds a tenant who stays on. No statute reaches breed, size or weight in housing, and Idaho lets cities go further than the state does on dangerous dogs while forbidding any city to cap what a landlord charges. The hardest fact for tenants: Idaho enacts no assistance-animal right in housing, no documentation rule and no bar on charging for one, so everything comes from federal law, yet faking one is still a state misdemeanor.

Idaho pets & assistance animals at a glance

Which law governs Idaho is not a uniform-act state and has no single residential landlord-tenant act. The deposit answer is in the unlawful-detainer chapter, at section 6-321 of the Idaho Code, which deems every amount a tenant deposits for any purpose other than rent to be a security deposit. The fee answer is in the property title, at section 55-305, which requires any fee imposed on a residential tenant to be reasonable and to be in the rental agreement, and at section 55-304, which governs changes to a month-to-month lease and rent increases. Section 55-306 bars a local government from regulating the rent, fees or deposits charged for leasing private residential property. The Idaho Human Rights Act, Title 67 chapter 59, is the fair-housing law, and it carries no reasonable-accommodation duty for rules and policies, so no state law reaches an assistance animal in housing. The one animal rule is criminal: section 18-5811A makes it a misdemeanor to use an assistance device, an assistance animal or a service dog to gain treatment or benefits as an individual with a disability. Manufactured home community lots have their own act, Title 55 chapter 20.
Where in the state the answers differ Two lines run through Idaho's answers. The fee rule in section 55-305 applies only to rental agreements entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2023, so a long-running tenancy signed before that date is outside the reasonableness and disclosure requirements; a reader checks the date the current agreement was signed or last renewed. Separately, a lot in a manufactured home community is governed by the Manufactured Home Residency Act rather than by the private-market sections, and that act has its own pet-charge, lease-content, rule-change and deposit provisions, stated as a separate row below.
Which landlords are covered Every residential landlord. The deposit section speaks of a tenant and a landlord with no unit threshold, no owner-occupied exemption and no county-by-county adoption, and the fee section binds an owner of rental property on the same terms. The fair-housing exemptions in Idaho law reach a different set of rules and change nothing on this page, because Idaho has no state assistance-animal duty in housing for them to switch off: section 67-5910, subsection 7, exempts the rental of a unit in a building housing not more than two families where the lessor or a family member lives in one of them, and the rental of a room or rooms where the owner or a family member lives there. A lot in a manufactured home community is governed by its own act and is stated as a separate row below.
Pet deposit

Yes, with no statutory limit.

Idaho has no pet-deposit statute and no deposit ceiling of any kind, so the amount of a pet deposit is a matter for the lease. What the law does instead is define: amounts deposited by a tenant with a landlord for any purpose other than the payment of rent are deemed security deposits (section 6-321, subsection 1), which pulls a refundable pet deposit in automatically and gives it the same rules as the rest of the deposit. Those rules are a refund within twenty-one days where the agreement fixes no time and within thirty days in any event, with a signed statement itemizing what was kept, why, and a detailed list of what was spent (subsection 2); the bar on retaining anything for normal wear and tear (subsection 1); liability for the refund passing to a new owner where the property changes hands during the tenancy (subsection 3); and, where a third-party manager manages the rental, a duty to hold the deposit in a separate account at a federally insured financial institution, apart from the manager's operating account, with exemptions for the property owner, managers sharing members or principals with the owner, real estate licensees and nonprofit business organizations (subsection 4).

Refundability: A refundable pet deposit is a security deposit and must be returned, except amounts necessary to cover the contingencies the deposit arrangement itself specifies (section 6-321, subsection 1). Nothing may be retained to cover normal wear and tear, which the section defines as deterioration that occurs from the use the unit is intended for, without negligence, carelessness, accident, or misuse or abuse of the premises or contents by the tenant, members of the household or their invitees or guests. A charge the parties agree is earned when paid and never returnable is not money held as security, so a genuinely non-refundable pet fee falls outside the deposit section altogether and is governed by the fee rule instead.
Pet rent and pet fees

Yes — pet rent or a pet fee may be charged, and no statute caps it.

Idaho sets no ceiling on a pet fee or on pet rent, but it does set a standard and a disclosure rule for fees. Any fee imposed on a residential tenant must be reasonable, and reasonable is defined nowhere in the property title: there is no percentage, no dollar figure, no cost-relatedness test and no factor list. Nor is there a remedy, because the fee section creates no private right of action and no penalty, and the attorney-fee award in section 6-324 is scoped to the unlawful-detainer chapter, not to the property title. The sharper rule in practice is the disclosure limb: a pet fee larger than the agreed amount cannot be charged, and a pet fee that is not in a written rental agreement cannot be charged until thirty days after written notice of the change. All of this applies only to agreements entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2023. Monthly pet rent sits outside the whole test, because the section expressly leaves the amount of rent alone.

Monthly pet rent: Monthly pet rent is outside the fee rule entirely. Section 55-305, subsection 4, says that nothing in the section limits the amount that can be charged for rent, so a charge folded into rent escapes the reasonableness and disclosure requirements that catch a charge styled as a fee. What it gains instead is the rent clock: an increase in the amount of rent charged needs thirty days' written notice before it takes effect (section 55-304, subsection 2).

A one-time pet fee: A one-time pet fee, a pet administration fee and a pet-screening charge are all fees imposed on a residential tenant, so each must be reasonable, may not exceed the amount agreed in the rental agreement, and may not be charged at all if it is not in the agreement, unless the agreement is oral or the owner has given thirty days' written notice of the change (section 55-305, subsections 1 and 2). Idaho has no bar on a non-refundable fee: the words nonrefundable and non-refundable appear nowhere in the unlawful-detainer chapter or in the whole property title.
Pet policy in the lease, and changing it mid-tenancy

No — but a written-rules or mid-term-change provision would govern a pet rule the landlord adopts.

No Idaho statute requires a lease to say whether pets are allowed, requires a pet charge to be disclosed as such, or supplies a default when the lease is silent. What Idaho has is a set of default rules about change. On a month-to-month tenancy fifteen days' written notice rewrites the lease, and holding over is the acceptance; a fee change under a written agreement needs thirty days' notice and the fee must be in the agreement; a rent increase needs thirty days. There is no statutory limit on the number, size or species of pets, no pet-specific cure period for an unauthorized animal, and no housing class that must allow pets. A lot in a manufactured home community is different: there the pet charge must be described in the written rental agreement, and a rule adopted or amended mid-tenancy is unenforceable without the resident's consent or ninety days' written notice.

Changing the rule mid-tenancy: Two sections govern a change, and which one applies turns on how the charge is styled. For a month-to-month tenancy the landlord may change the terms of the lease on at least fifteen days' written notice before the end of the month, and the notice itself operates to create and establish the terms, rent and conditions it specifies as part of the lease if the tenant holds over (section 55-304, subsection 1) — so a new no-pets rule or a new pet condition binds a holding-over tenant without consent. A change to a fee under a written agreement needs thirty days' written notice of the change (section 55-305, subsection 2, paragraph (b)), and an increase in rent, which is what monthly pet rent is, needs thirty days' written notice (section 55-304, subsection 2).
Breed, size and weight restrictions

Yes.

No Idaho statute or rule bans, limits or authorizes a breed, size, weight or number restriction in housing. The word breed appears nowhere in the whole property title, in the unlawful-detainer chapter, in the Human Rights Act or in the Commission's rules; the hits in the animals title and the criminal title are all livestock and husbandry provisions or cruelty exemptions. Idaho's own dangerous-dog definitions are about conduct, not breed: an at-risk dog is one that bites a person without justified provocation and without causing serious injury, and a dangerous dog is one that has inflicted serious injury without justified provocation or has already been found at risk and then bites or attacks again (section 25-2810, subsection 4). Idaho does not preempt breed-specific local rules; it does the opposite, and that is stated under local authority below.
Assistance animals: the state instrument and who it binds

No — no state instrument reaches assistance animals in housing; the federal rules alone apply.

Idaho has no state assistance-animal rule for housing, and the gap is structural rather than an oversight. The Human Rights Act makes disability discrimination in a real estate transaction unlawful (section 67-5909, subsection 8), and one of that subsection's paragraphs is the counterpart of the federal duty to permit reasonable modifications of the premises at the disabled person's expense, subject to a restoration condition in a rental (paragraph (h)). The other federal limb, the duty to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, is the one every assistance-animal claim runs through, and Idaho never enacted it. Two further features confirm the absence: the Act's only definition of reasonable accommodation is written for employment, testing whether an adjustment disrupts the employer's operations or contradicts a business necessity (section 67-5902, subsection 16), and the Act's stated purposes name the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Titles I and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but not the Fair Housing Act (section 67-5901, subsection 1). The Human Rights Commission's rules are complaint practice and carry no animal term at all. Idaho law defines no assistance animal, no support animal and no emotional support animal anywhere. A tenant in Idaho who needs an assistance animal relies on federal law alone; the federal section of the 50-state page carries it.

Who it binds: No Idaho landlord is bound by a state assistance-animal rule, because Idaho has none. What binds a landlord here is federal law, which the federal section of the 50-state page carries. For completeness, the state fair-housing duties that do exist bind an owner or any other person engaging in a real estate transaction, and a real estate broker or salesperson, where a real estate transaction includes the rental or lease of real property; they do not apply to the rental of a unit in a building housing not more than two families where the lessor or a family member lives in one of them, or to the rental of a room or rooms where the owner or a family member lives there (section 67-5910, subsection 7). None of that changes a pets answer, because the duty an assistance animal would run through was never enacted.
What counts as an assistance animal No state instrument defines an assistance animal for housing; the federal definitions are the only ones
Documentation a landlord may request, and what a certifier must meet

No state instrument sets a documentation standard; the federal rules alone apply.

Idaho sets no documentation rule at all. No statute or rule says what a landlord may ask, who may write supporting documentation, how long a treating relationship must have run, what a letter must contain, whether an online certificate counts, or how quickly a landlord must answer. The professions title and the health and safety title were read chapter by chapter and carry no assistance-animal, emotional-support, support-animal, service-animal, service-dog or guide-dog provision, so no Idaho clinician has a statutory duty when asked for a letter. What a landlord may ask for in Idaho comes from federal law, on the federal section of the 50-state page.
Charges for an assistance animal

Under state law, yes — no state text bars a charge for an assistance animal; the federal rules alone govern it.

No Idaho statute or rule bars a pet deposit, a pet fee or pet rent for an assistance animal, a support animal or a service dog in housing. That follows from the absence of any state accommodation duty: there is nothing for a charge bar to hang on, and no free-standing bar was enacted. Idaho does have a surcharge bar, but it is scoped to public accommodations in its own first words: a place of public accommodation, including a common carrier, hotel, lodging house or other public place, may not ask an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge even where people with pets must pay fees, although it may charge for damage the dog causes where it normally charges for damage (section 56-704A, subsection 7). Its older companion gives the right to be accompanied by a service dog without an extra charge only in the places described in section 56-703 (section 56-704). The whole chapter those sections sit in uses the words landlord, tenant, lease, rental and dwelling nowhere. Both bars also reach a dog only: a service dog is a dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability, other species are not service animals for that chapter, and the crime-deterrent effect of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort or companionship are not work or tasks (section 56-701A, subsection 5). What limits a pet charge for an animal a landlord must permit in Idaho is federal law, which the federal section of the 50-state page carries.
Damage caused by an assistance animal No state text addresses damage caused by an assistance animal in housing.
Misrepresenting an assistance animal

An offense or sanction that reaches a misrepresentation made to obtain housing: a misdemeanor, reaching the person claiming the animal. The text names no venue and no court has construed its reach, so it reaches housing by its general words.

Any person who is not an individual with a disability, and is not being trained to assist individuals with disabilities, who uses an assistance device, an assistance animal or a service dog in an attempt to gain treatment or benefits as an individual with a disability, is guilty of a misdemeanor (section 18-5811A). The text carries no venue limit and the word benefits is unqualified, so on its face a false claim made to be let out of a no-pets rule or a pet charge is inside it; no Idaho court has said so, and no act that created or amended the offense touched a housing statute. No prior warning is needed. The offense reaches only the person making the claim: Idaho penalizes no letter-writer, no vendor of certificates and no clinician, and the professions and health titles carry no animal-and-disability provision at all. A separate section makes battery to an assistance animal, a service dog or a dog-in-training a misdemeanor with restitution for veterinary and replacement costs (section 18-5812); that is a different offense and not a misrepresentation rule. The result is that Idaho is the state where a false assistance-animal claim in a rental may be a state offense while the right being abused is purely federal.

Where the words leave the reach open: Two things about this offense are genuinely open. First, its reach into housing has never been tested: both acts that created and last touched it amended only public-accommodation, transport, vehicle-code and criminal sections, none of them a housing statute, and Idaho enacted no legislative finding tying the offense to a tenancy; the 2019 amendment changed terminology only. Second, the broadest of the three things the offense names, an assistance animal, has no statutory content: the definitions section that by its own words governs the criminal chapter defines assistance device, dog-in-training, individual with a disability, place of public accommodation and service dog, but never assistance animal (section 56-701A).

Who enforces it: Prosecution as an ordinary misdemeanor. Section 18-5811A states no fine and no jail term of its own, so the maximum comes from the criminal code's general penalty provision for a misdemeanor, which is not stated here. There is no civil penalty, no eviction ground and no licensing sanction.
Can cities add their own rules

In part — state law preempts the kinds of local rule named as barred, and any power named is one state law grants.

Idaho keeps the money side and the dog side in opposite directions, and a reader needs both. On money, section 55-306 bars a local government from regulating the rent, fees or deposits charged for leasing private residential property, so a city cannot cap a pet deposit, a pet fee or pet rent; the wording has been law since July 1, 2024, a year earlier than the section number it now sits under would suggest. On dogs, the state dangerous-dog act is a minimum standard that expressly leaves local governments free to adopt more restrictive definitions of a dangerous or vicious dog, and cities separately hold the classic animal-control powers to regulate animals running at large, to impound them and to impose a license tax (section 50-319). The constitutional frame fits both: a county, city or town may make and enforce local police, sanitary and other regulations that are not in conflict with its charter or with the general laws (article XII, section 2, of the Idaho Constitution). In one line: an Idaho city may ban a breed and may license and impound dogs, but it may not cap what a private landlord charges for one. No Idaho city ordinance on pets in housing is stated here.

Local deposit or fee rules barred: A local governmental unit may not enact, maintain or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would have the effect of forcing Idaho property owners to take part in an optional federal housing assistance program, or of any other program or law that would otherwise regulate rent, fees or deposits charged for leasing private residential property. The only carve-out preserves a local unit's right to manage and control residential property in which it has a property interest, meaning its own housing. A municipal cap on pet deposits, pet fees or pet rent is therefore unlawful, and has been since July 1, 2024, when the rent, fees or deposits wording was first enacted as part of the previous section; the 2025 reorganization moved it into a stand-alone section without changing it. Text: Idaho Code § 55-306.

Localities may regulate the keeping or licensing of animals: Idaho's dangerous-dog law is a floor and not a ceiling. The act establishes minimum standards and requirements for the control of dogs that may threaten the public with injury, and it expressly does not supersede or invalidate existing local ordinances or prohibit local governments from adopting and enforcing more restrictive definitions of a dangerous or vicious dog, so long as the local definition allows for acts of justified provocation. Idaho cities and counties may therefore go further than the state does on dogs, and Idaho does not preempt breed-specific local ordinances. Text: Idaho Code § 25-2812.
Housing classes with their own pet rule Manufactured home community lots (Manufactured Home Residency Act): pet deposit — no statute, no cap; pet rent and fees — allowed, no cap; a prescribed term or form must carry the pet terms. A lot in a manufactured home community is the one place Idaho law names pets. Fees means the financial obligations incidental to a resident's tenancy, including charges for late payments, pets, the storage of recreational vehicles and the use of community facilities (section 55-2003, subsection 4), so a pet charge is expressly contemplated and expressly uncapped. Because the rental agreement must contain the terms for paying rent and a description of any other charges to be paid to the landlord, a pet charge must be described in the written agreement (section 55-2007, subsection 1, paragraph (a)), and the agreement must also contain the rules of the community (paragraph (c)); entrance and exit fees are barred (subsection 2, paragraph (b)). A rule is enforceable only if it is part of the agreement the resident signed, and a rule adopted or amended afterwards is unenforceable unless the resident consents or is given ninety days' written notice; rules must be fairly and uniformly enforced and carry an effective date (section 55-2008). The landlord may not amend the agreement or the rules more than once in any six-month period, and ninety days' written notice is required for an amendment (section 55-2006, subsection 3). Deposits have their own function test: any payment, deposit, fee or other charge required in addition to periodic rent, utility charges or service fees, and collected as prepaid rent or to compensate for a resident default, is a deposit, and the landlord must keep a separate record of it (section 55-2013). The section sets no ceiling and no return clock of its own. The manufactured-home page carries the rest of the park rules. Text: Idaho Code §§ 55-2003, 55-2006, 55-2007, 55-2008, 55-2013 · 55-2003(4), 55-2006(3), 55-2007(1)(a), (1)(c), (2)(b), 55-2008(1)-(3), 55-2013(1)-(2).
Insurance and dog breeds No statute restricts an insurer's use of dog breed in underwriting
How state law refers to the federal rules Idaho's own law reaches an assistance animal in housing nowhere, so everything a tenant here has comes from federal law, which the federal section of the 50-state page carries and which this page does not restate. Where Idaho does borrow from federal law, it borrows for public accommodations rather than housing, and one of the two borrowings is frozen in time: an individual with a disability means an individual who has a disability as defined by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations effective as of January 1, 2019 (section 56-701A, subsection 3), while a place of public accommodation takes its meaning from the same federal act without a date (subsection 4). The Idaho Human Rights Act's stated purposes name the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Titles I and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and do not name the Fair Housing Act (section 67-5901, subsection 1). No Idaho statute or rule adopts a federal agency notice, a joint statement or a federal housing regulation, and the Human Rights Commission's one interpretive rule simply points back at those stated purposes.
Changes already signed into law No signed act is waiting to change these answers
Leading court decisions None carried — the answers rest on the statutes and rules cited

Cite this page: "Landlord Atlas, Idaho Pet & Assistance Animal Laws (verified September 21, 2026), landlordatlas.com/laws/pets/idaho/" — free to cite and quote with a link (how these records are verified). Everything above is cited in the citations section below.

Idaho assistance-animal documentation at a glance

No state instrument reaches assistance animals in housing, so no row below is a state rule; the federal rules further down this page are the only ones. The full text of each slot, with its section, is in the table above.

Slot What the state's text says
Who may certify, and on what test Not stated
The certifier's minimum relationship period Not stated
Telehealth Not stated
Online registration or certificate Not stated
Form Not stated
Medical records Not stated
Written answer from the landlord Not stated
Annual re-evaluation Not stated
Proof of vaccination or licensing Not stated

Housing classes in Idaho with their own pet rule

Each row is a housing class whose own instrument sets at least one pet cell differently from the private-market answers above; a dash is a cell the class's instrument does not set, so the residential answer on this page does not carry over to it either way. The full text of each row is in the table above.

Class Pet deposit Pet rent and fees In the lease Breed, size, weight Extra charge for an assistance animal From
Manufactured home community lots (Manufactured Home Residency Act) No statute, no cap Allowed, no cap Prescribed term or form — — —

Federal law on pets and assistance animals, in every state

The federal layer for the pets and assistance-animals topic, carried once for the whole site. It is a dated history rather than a single rule: the Fair Housing Act's accommodation duty has not changed since 1988 and the regulation under it has never contained the word animal, while the HUD guidance that most writing on this subject still quotes was withdrawn in September 2025, permanently rescinded in May 2026, and replaced by an enforcement position that governs HUD's own cause determinations and nothing else. Every row names who it binds, and most of the rows that carry real figures bind only federally assisted, public or rural-development housing. No state record restates these rows; a state record says only where its own law references or extends them. Each row below says who it binds before it says what it does. The full text of each row, with its citations, is on the 50-state page.

Notes and caveats

Common questions: Idaho pets & assistance animals

Each answer is the verified value from the table above, restated as a direct answer. Free to quote with a link to this page.

Can a landlord charge a pet deposit in Idaho, and is there a limit?
Yes, with no statutory limit. Idaho has no pet-deposit statute and no deposit ceiling of any kind, so the amount of a pet deposit is a matter for the lease.
Can a landlord charge pet rent or a non-refundable pet fee in Idaho?
Yes — pet rent or a pet fee may be charged, and no statute caps it. Idaho sets no ceiling on a pet fee or on pet rent, but it does set a standard and a disclosure rule for fees.
Does an Idaho lease have to state a pet policy?
No — but a written-rules or mid-term-change provision would govern a pet rule the landlord adopts. No Idaho statute requires a lease to say whether pets are allowed, requires a pet charge to be disclosed as such, or supplies a default when the lease is silent.
Can an Idaho landlord restrict pets by breed, size or weight?
Yes. No Idaho statute or rule bans, limits or authorizes a breed, size, weight or number restriction in housing.
Does Idaho have its own assistance-animal law for rentals?
No — no state instrument reaches assistance animals in housing; the federal rules alone apply. Idaho has no state assistance-animal rule for housing, and the gap is structural rather than an oversight.
What documentation can an Idaho landlord ask for when a tenant requests an assistance animal?
No state instrument sets a documentation standard; the federal rules alone apply. Idaho sets no documentation rule at all.
Can an Idaho landlord charge a pet deposit or pet rent for an emotional support animal?
Under state law, yes — no state text bars a charge for an assistance animal; the federal rules alone govern it. No Idaho statute or rule bars a pet deposit, a pet fee or pet rent for an assistance animal, a support animal or a service dog in housing.
What is the penalty for falsely claiming an assistance animal in Idaho?
An offense or sanction that reaches a misrepresentation made to obtain housing: a misdemeanor, reaching the person claiming the animal. The text names no venue and no court has construed its reach, so it reaches housing by its general words.

Citations

How this record was verified: Direct reading of the Idaho Code on the Legislature's own host, whose banner states that Idaho Statutes are updated to the website July 1 following the legislative session, so the posted text carries the 2026 regular session that adjourned April 2, 2026. The section pages were read for the text and the History credit line of sections 6-321, 55-304, 55-305, 55-306, 67-5909, 18-5811A and 56-701A, because one chapter file (Title 6, chapter 3) was last regenerated in September 2025 and the section page is the currency-safe surface for Idaho. Whole chapters read in full: Title 6 chapter 3 (forcible entry and unlawful detainer, where the deposit section sits), Title 55 chapter 3 (landlord and tenant), Title 55 chapter 20 (the Manufactured Home Residency Act), Title 67 chapter 59 (the Idaho Human Rights Act), Title 56 chapter 7 (rights of individuals with disabilities, all twelve sections), Title 18 chapter 58 and Title 25 chapter 28 (dangerous dogs). Whole titles read chapter by chapter, every chapter retrieved successfully: Title 41 (insurance, 61 chapters), Title 18 (crimes and punishments, 83 chapters), Title 50 (municipal corporations, 27 chapters), Title 55 (property, 29 chapters), Title 25 (animals, 34 chapters), Title 54 (professions, 56 chapters) and Title 39 (health and safety, 84 chapters). Article XII, section 2 of the Idaho Constitution read for the local police power. The Idaho Human Rights Commission's rules, IDAPA 45.01.01, were read in full from the Division of Financial Management's file host, each subsection carrying its own currency date of March 31, 2022, because the rules host's own document search and listings have been out of service since about September 1, 2026; a bounded check of the surrounding chapter numbers established that 45.01.01 is the Commission's only chapter, and the Abridged Rulemaking Index, current to September 2, 2026, lists no Commission rulemaking. The enrolled acts were read in full from the session laws: 2023 chapter 67, 2024 chapter 257 (House Bill 545, approved April 1, 2024), 2025 chapter 65 (Senate Bill 1043, approved March 13, 2025) and 2019 chapter 213, together with the 2026 session laws' Code Index of amendments, repeals, additions and references. The four official session legislation indexes for 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 were read in full, every animal and dog row opened. The state appellate opinion archive was searched for assistance-animal, emotional-support-animal and service-dog decisions and for decisions citing sections 67-5909 and 18-5811A; the one recent opinion using the phrase emotional support animal, Garshelis v. Bennett (Idaho Court of Appeals, January 6, 2026), was read in full and set aside as a conversion case between private individuals rather than a tenancy.

What was read to state each absence on this page: