# ESA Letter in Madison, SD: Which Definition Applies

> SDCL 20-13-1(4) gives disability three different qualifiers for three fields. In a Madison housing dispute only subdivision (b) is yours.

- Source: https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/madison/
- Publisher: Support Animal (supportanimal.com)
- Updated: 2026-09-05
- License note: informational content; not legal or medical advice.

## Key facts

- Population: 6,086
- Households renting: 39.8%
- Typical pet deposit (as a pet): Barred as accommodation
- Typical pet rent (as a pet): $25-$40/mo for pets
- Breed/weight limits common: sometimes
- Pet fees, deposits, and breed limits with a valid ESA letter: none (FHA reasonable accommodation)

## A small city that rents like a bigger one

Madison has 1,024 renting households out of 2,573 occupied homes, 39.8
percent on the 2020–2024 American Community Survey five-year estimate. That
is seventh of South Dakota's twenty largest cities and eight points above
the 31.4 percent statewide figure, in a city of 6,086 people on the 2024
Census estimate.

Median gross rent is $981, thirty-five dollars above the $946 state median,
high for a place this size, and a consequence of a small stock serving both
Dakota State University and the wider Lake County catchment.

Small markets produce a particular kind of dispute. Not a management company's process, but
a direct disagreement with an individual about whether you count. Which makes it worth
knowing exactly what "count" means under South Dakota law, because the code gives three
different answers depending on where you are standing.

## One definition, three qualifiers

SDCL 20-13-1(4) opens with a general standard:

> "'Disability,' a physical or mental impairment of a person resulting from disease, injury,
> congenital condition of birth, or functional disorder which **substantially limits one or
> more of the person's major life functions**; a record of having such an impairment; or
> being regarded as having such an impairment which:"

That word "which" is a hinge. What follows is three lettered qualifiers, each tied to a
different run of sections:

> "(a) For purposes of §§ 20-13-10 to 20-13-17, inclusive, is unrelated to an individual's
> ability to perform the major duties of a particular job or position, or is unrelated to an
> individual's qualifications for employment or promotion;
>
> **(b) For purposes of §§ 20-13-20 to 20-13-21.1, inclusive, is unrelated to an individual's
> ability to acquire, rent or maintain property;**
>
> (c) For purposes of §§ 20-13-22 to 20-13-25, inclusive, is unrelated to an individual's
> ability to utilize and benefit from educational opportunities, programs and facilities at
> an educational institution."

Sections 20-13-20 to 20-13-21.1 are the **housing** sections. Subdivision
(b) is the one that governs a Madison rental dispute.

## Why this matters in practice

Because the wrong qualifier is easy to pick up and hands the other side a
correction.

Subdivision (a), the employment test, asks whether the impairment is
unrelated to the ability to do a job. That is the version that appears in
most general writing about the South Dakota human rights chapter, because
employment cases are the bulk of the chapter's work. It is not the housing
test.

Subdivision (b) asks something narrower and different: whether the impairment is
**"unrelated to an individual's ability to acquire, rent or maintain property."**

No South Dakota case construing subdivision (b) was retrieved for this page,
so this section will not tell you how a court has read it. What it will say
is the structural point, which is solid: the housing enquiry is about
acquiring, renting and maintaining property. Arguments about your capacity
to work are, on the face of the statute, in the wrong subdivision.

## The exclusion in the same paragraph

SDCL 20-13-1(4) closes:

> "This term does not include current illegal use of or addiction to marijuana as defined in
> subdivision 22-42-1(7) or a controlled substance as defined in subdivision 22-42-1(1)."

That is a limit on the definition itself, applying across the chapter, and
it belongs on any honest page about who the South Dakota act covers.

## What the federal definition does

The Fair Housing Act has its own definition and its own accommodation duty
at **42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)**, and neither is narrowed by SDCL
20-13-1(4)'s qualifiers.

So where a Madison landlord argues that you do not meet the state
definition, the federal question has to be asked separately. It is not
settled by the state answer, and a tenant who treats the two as one enquiry
gives up a route that was still open.

## Who decides

Not the landlord. Whether you meet a statutory definition is a legal
standard, and a landlord's view of it is an opinion.

What a landlord may lawfully do is ask for documentation, SDCL 43-32-34 gives them that
right expressly, subject to the exception where the disability or the disability-related need
is "readily apparent or already known" to them. In a town of six thousand, that exception is
worth raising if it applies.

What the documentation must then establish is set by SDCL 43-32-35: it must
**confirm the tenant's disability** and confirm **the relationship between
the disability and the need for the requested accommodation**. Read those
two requirements next to subdivision (b) and they line up: an assessment of
an impairment, and an assessment of what it means for living somewhere.

## Everything else that applies

The entitlement runs through the federal duty together with SDCL 20-13-23.7, which asks for good
faith efforts at reasonable accommodation in housing unless that would work an undue hardship. A
charge fixed to the animal is a separate matter, handled by SDCL 20-13-20(2)'s bar on treating a
disabled tenant differently in the terms, conditions or privileges of the tenancy. SDCL 43-32-6.1 caps
everything the landlord holds at one month's rent "however denominated," a little under a
thousand dollars at Madison's median.

SDCL 20-13-31 gives 180 days from the refusal, with no discovery language,
and a period spent arguing about whether you meet the definition counts
against that window like any other.

## What the qualifier is not asking

Two readings to avoid, because both come up.

It is **not** asking whether the impairment prevents you renting.
Subdivision (b) says the impairment must be "unrelated to" the ability to
acquire, rent or maintain property: the structure mirrors the employment
qualifier, where an impairment unrelated to job performance is the one the
act protects.

And it is **not** an invitation for a landlord to assess your finances.
Whether you can afford the rent is a question every applicant answers; it is
not a disability question, and dressing it as one would be discrimination in
the terms of the rental rather than an application of subdivision (b).

**And it is not asking a landlord to diagnose.** Subdivision (b) qualifies a statutory definition; it
does not licence an untrained assessment of your health. What a landlord may do is ask for
documentation under SDCL 43-32-34 and read what the clinician wrote.

## The step that answers the definition

Start with one you already see. If your clinical relationship runs through
the university's services, that is a licensed health care provider and
plainly not an operation existing solely to certify animals, though campus
services carry semester waitlists and are built for short-term counselling
rather than for writing disability determinations, and a clinician who has
seen you twice may properly decline to make a finding yet.

Off campus, Lake County has very little psychiatric capacity of its own;
most Madison residents' specialist care is in Sioux Falls or Brookings, with
new-patient waits running to months.

Where those routes are closed, a licensed evaluation is the same examination
arranged on purpose: a licensed clinician deciding whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life function and whether this animal answers
it, then writing the determination or explaining that they cannot. Both
endings are real, and a provider whose answer is settled in advance is the
operation SDCL 43-32-35 excludes by description.

The statute asks a question about you. Only one kind of document actually
answers it.

## What Madison landlords can and cannot do

**Cannot:**
- May not require documentation at all where the disability or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known to them, SDCL 43-32-34, second sentence.
- May not discriminate because of disability in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental, SDCL 20-13-20(2). A pet deposit or monthly pet charge on a required accommodation is caught here.
- May not take a security deposit above one month's rent "however denominated", SDCL 43-32-6.1, so a pet fee cannot be stacked on top of a full deposit by renaming it.

**Can:**
- May require reliable supporting documentation where a tenant asserts a disability requiring an assistance animal, SDCL 43-32-34. This is an express statutory right and arguing that a South Dakota landlord may not ask is simply wrong.
- May insist the documentation confirm both the disability and the relationship between the disability and the need for the animal, and that it come from a licensed health care provider who does not operate in South Dakota solely to certify animals, SDCL 43-32-35.
- Must make good faith efforts to reasonably accommodate a person with a disability in housing, unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship, SDCL 20-13-23.7, with punitive damages available under SDCL 20-13-35.1.
- Must return the deposit or give written reasons within twenty-one days of termination, and forfeits all right to withhold anything by failing to, SDCL 43-32-24.
- May evict and claim a damage fee of up to one thousand dollars where a tenant knowingly makes a false claim of disability or knowingly supplies fraudulent documentation, SDCL 43-32-36.
- Is not required by the chapter to modify the property, incur additional expenses or exercise a higher degree of care, SDCL 20-13-21.1. Waiving a no-pets rule asks for none of those things.

## How to get an ESA letter in Madison

1. **Check that you qualify**, Answer a short screening about how your condition affects daily life in Madison. No diagnosis paperwork needed up front. (About 5 minutes: free)
2. **Connect with a licensed professional**, You are matched with a provider licensed for South Dakota clients who reviews your situation in a telehealth evaluation. (Telehealth evaluation)
3. **Complete your evaluation**, The professional evaluates whether an emotional support animal alleviates symptoms of a condition recognized in the DSM-5. Honest evaluations, not everyone qualifies. (Most of Our Applicants Qualify)
4. **Receive your signed letter**, Your letter arrives on the professional's letterhead with their license number: the documentation South Dakota landlords may lawfully request. (Typically within days of approval)
5. **Send it to your landlord**, Submit the letter with a short reasonable-accommodation request. Pet fees, pet deposits, and breed limits no longer apply to your animal in Madison. (Protection under FHA + state law)

## Conditions that can qualify for an ESA

No fixed government list exists. A licensed professional evaluates whether an animal alleviates symptoms of a DSM-5-recognized condition, commonly:

- Generalized anxiety disorder
- Major depressive disorder
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
- Panic disorder
- Social anxiety disorder
- Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
- Bipolar disorder
- Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
- Phobias with housing impact
- Chronic stress affecting daily function

## Housing help in Madison

- [City of Madison](https://www.cityofmadisonsd.gov/) (city government)
- [Inter-Lakes Community Action Partnership](https://www.interlakescap.com/) (community action agency)
- [SD Division of Human Rights](https://dlr.sd.gov/human_rights/default.aspx) (state civil rights agency)
- [Disability Rights South Dakota](https://drsdlaw.org/) (disability rights org)

## Frequently asked questions

### How does South Dakota define disability for a housing claim?

SDCL 20-13-1(4) sets the general definition: a physical or mental impairment resulting from disease, injury, congenital condition of birth or functional disorder which substantially limits one or more of the person's major life functions, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having one, and then adds a field-specific qualifier. For housing, subdivision (b) applies: the impairment must be "unrelated to an individual's ability to acquire, rent or maintain property."

### What does "unrelated to an individual's ability to acquire, rent or maintain property" mean?

It is the housing analogue of the employment qualifier in subdivision (a), which asks whether the impairment is unrelated to the ability to perform a job. No South Dakota case construing subdivision (b) was retrieved for this page, so what can be said with confidence is the structural point: the housing test asks about the ability to rent and maintain property, not about work or education.

### Which sections does subdivision (b) attach to?

It is expressly "for purposes of §§ 20-13-20 to 20-13-21.1, inclusive", the housing sections. Subdivision (a) governs the employment run at 20-13-10 to 20-13-17, and subdivision (c) governs 20-13-22 to 20-13-25, education and public accommodations. Quoting the wrong one at a Madison landlord invites a correction, and quoting the employment test in a housing dispute is the common way to get one.

### Does the definition exclude anything?

It does. The closing sentence of SDCL 20-13-1(4) provides that the term "does not include current illegal use of or addiction to marijuana as defined in subdivision 22-42-1(7) or a controlled substance as defined in subdivision 22-42-1(1)." That is a limit on the definition itself and it applies across the chapter.

### Is the federal definition different?

The federal Fair Housing Act has its own definition of handicap and its own reasonable accommodation duty at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), which is not narrowed by anything in the South Dakota code. Where a Madison landlord disputes that you meet the state definition, the federal question is separate and has to be answered separately rather than treated as decided by the state answer.

### Does a landlord decide whether I meet the definition?

No. It is a legal standard, and what a landlord may lawfully do is ask for documentation under SDCL 43-32-34, unless the disability or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known to them. What that documentation must confirm is set by SDCL 43-32-35: the disability, and the relationship between the disability and the need for the animal.

### How long do I have to bring a charge in Madison?

180 days from the refusal, under SDCL 20-13-31, filed with the Division of Human Rights. There is no discovery language in the section, and a period spent arguing about whether you meet the definition of disability counts against the window like any other.

---

Get evaluated by a licensed provider: https://my.supportanimal.com/qualify?sa_source=blog&sa_medium=blog&sa_campaign=esa-guides&sa_content=markdown&ref=blog&sa_term=south-dakota-emotional-support-animal%2Fmadison