# ESA Letter in Tea, SD: Lead With the Federal Section

> Every South Dakota assistance-animal provision has a limit written into it. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) does not, and in Tea that is the one that works.

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

## Key facts

- Population: 7,699
- Households renting: 20.3%
- Typical pet deposit (as a pet): Barred as accommodation
- Typical pet rent (as a pet): $35-$60/mo for pets
- Breed/weight limits common: yes
- Pet fees, deposits, and breed limits with a valid ESA letter: none (FHA reasonable accommodation)

## Four hundred and forty rentals, at the state's third-highest rent

Tea has **440** renting households out of 2,171 occupied homes, 20.3 percent
on the 2020–2024 American Community Survey five-year estimate, eighteenth of
South Dakota's twenty largest cities and eleven points below the 31.4
percent statewide figure.

Median gross rent is **$1,220**, third highest in the state behind Box Elder
($1,491) and Harrisburg ($1,362), and twenty-nine percent above the $946
state median. The 2024 Census estimate puts the city at 7,699.

The combination is characteristic of the Sioux Falls commuter ring: mostly
new, mostly owner-occupied, expensive when it does rent, and small enough
that a tenant with a problem has nowhere else in town to go.

## An inventory of South Dakota's limits

Work through the South Dakota provisions a tenant with an assistance animal
might reach for, and each one has a boundary written into its own text.

**SDCL 20-13-23.4** (no landlord may prohibit the keeping of a service animal) covers a
person "totally or partially physically disabled, totally or partially blind, or totally or
partially deaf." Three categories, and psychiatric and mental disability are in none of
them. (The legislature added exactly those words to the public-accommodations section in
2020 and left this one alone.)

**SDCL 43-32-33**: the definition that expressly includes an emotional support animal,
opens "for the purposes of §§ 43-32-34 to 43-32-36, inclusive." Three documentation
sections, and no further.

**SDCL 20-13-21.1**, nothing in the chapter requires a landlord to modify the property,
incur additional expenses, or exercise a higher degree of care.

**SDCL 20-13-23.7**: the state accommodation duty: is real and carries punitive damages
under SDCL 20-13-35.1, but it is a single sentence with an undue-hardship exception, and a
landlord will read it next to 20-13-21.1.

None of that makes South Dakota law useless. It does mean that a Tea tenant
who opens with a South Dakota citation is opening on the ground where the
argument is hardest.

## The provision with no carve-out

**42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)**, the federal Fair Housing Act:

> discrimination includes "a refusal to make **reasonable accommodations in rules,
> policies, practices, or services**, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford
> such person **equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling**"

No animal in the sentence. No training requirement. No enumerated categories
of disability. No list of three things it does not require. And nothing in
the South Dakota code narrows it: a state may add to federal fair-housing
protection, not subtract from it.

A no-pets clause is a rule. The accommodation is an exception to that rule.
That is the whole structure, and it is the same structure the South Dakota
duty uses, without the qualifications attached.

## How to actually use this

Lead federal, cite state alongside.

A request that says "I am asking for a reasonable accommodation under the federal Fair
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), and under SDCL 20-13-23.7" is stronger than one
built on a South Dakota section a landlord's adviser can narrow. It also avoids the trap of
citing 20-13-23.4, which is the single most common South Dakota mistake, and it hands the
other side a correct answer.

## The exemption question changes shape too

SDCL 20-13-20's owner-occupied exemption covers dwellings for "no more than two families"
where the owner occupies one. The federal Act's exemptions are drawn differently and do not
line up with it.

So the two enquiries are genuinely separate. A small Tea landlord outside
the South Dakota section may still be inside the federal Act, and the
reverse is possible as well. Where a landlord claims an exemption, ask which
one, and then ask about the other.

## The documentation rules apply either way

This is where a tenant sometimes over-corrects. Basing the claim on federal law does not
switch off South Dakota's paperwork sections; SDCL 43-32-34 applies where a tenant asserts a
disability requiring an animal **"under any provision of law,"** which plainly includes a
federal one.

So a Tea landlord may still require reliable supporting documentation (unless the disability
or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known to them), and SDCL
43-32-35 still sets what it must be: confirming the disability, confirming the relationship
between the disability and the need for the animal, and originating from a licensed health
care provider "who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service
or assistance animals."

The source of the right and the standard for the paperwork are two different
questions with two different answers.

## Money, at Tea prices

SDCL 43-32-6.1 caps everything the landlord holds at one month's rent "however denominated."
At a $1,220 median that is over twelve hundred dollars, and the phrase is what prevents a pet
charge from sitting outside the ceiling under a different heading.

Where the animal is a required accommodation the charge should not appear, SDCL 20-13-20(2)
reaches disability discrimination in "the terms, conditions, or privileges" of a rental, and
the federal Act's enforcement history around accommodation-related fees is far longer than
anything in South Dakota law.

## Two clocks

SDCL 20-13-31 gives 180 days from when the practice occurred for a charge
with the Division of Human Rights, with no discovery language.

Federal Fair Housing Act deadlines are set by federal law and run on their
own schedule. Do not treat the South Dakota window as the only one in play,
and do not let a state deadline pass on the assumption that the federal
route is unlimited.

## Writing the request so it works under both

A single paragraph can carry both routes, and it is worth writing it that way.

Say that you are a person with a disability, that the animal is connected to
it, and that you are requesting a reasonable accommodation to the no-pets
clause **under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and SDCL 20-13-23.7**.

That formulation does three things at once: it names the federal duty first,
it keeps the state provision alongside rather than instead, and it avoids
the two South Dakota sections a landlord's adviser could otherwise narrow.
It also reads like something a person wrote rather than something copied off
a template, which in a 440-unit market matters more than it should.

**And keep the state provision in the letter anyway.** SDCL 20-13-23.7 carries punitive damages
under SDCL 20-13-35.1, which the federal section does not do in the same words. Leading federal is a
drafting choice, not a reason to drop the state duty.

## What has to be true before any of it

Start with one you already see. They meet the South Dakota source
requirement without discussion. For most Tea households that care is in
Sioux Falls, the deepest clinical bench in the state, where a new patient
still waits two to four months and several large practices decline to write
housing documentation as a matter of policy.

Where that is closed, a licensed evaluation is the same examination arranged
on purpose: someone licensed decides whether a disability exists and whether
this animal answers it, then writes the determination or explains that they
cannot. Both endings are real.

In a town with 440 rentals and nowhere else to move, the federal section is
what you argue from, and the determination is what makes the argument worth
making.

## What Tea 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 Tea

1. **Check that you qualify**, Answer a short screening about how your condition affects daily life in Tea. 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 Tea. (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 Tea

- [City of Tea](https://www.teasd.com/) (city government)
- [Sioux Falls Housing](https://www.siouxfallshousing.org/) (local housing authority)
- [SD Division of Human Rights](https://dlr.sd.gov/human_rights/default.aspx) (state civil rights agency)
- [South Dakota Housing](https://www.sdhousing.org/) (state housing authority)

## Frequently asked questions

### Is my main protection in Tea state law or federal law?

For most emotional support animal requests, federal. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) makes it discriminatory to refuse to make "reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." It names no animal, requires no training, and is not narrowed by anything in the South Dakota code. The state duty in SDCL 20-13-23.7 runs alongside it.

### Why not lead with a South Dakota section?

Because the obvious ones have limits written into them. SDCL 20-13-23.4 covers only people who are physically disabled, blind or deaf. SDCL 43-32-33's definition governs three documentation sections and no more. SDCL 20-13-21.1 removes modification, additional expense and higher care from the chapter's reach. Lead with the provision that has no such carve-out and cite the state sections alongside it.

### Do the South Dakota documentation rules still apply if my claim is federal?

Yes. SDCL 43-32-34 lets a landlord require reliable supporting documentation where a tenant asserts a disability requiring an animal "under any provision of law" (which expressly includes a federal one), and SDCL 43-32-35 sets what that documentation must be. The source of the right and the standard for the paperwork are different questions with different answers.

### Does a small Tea landlord fall outside the federal Act?

That has to be checked rather than assumed. The Fair Housing Act has its own exemptions, drawn differently from SDCL 20-13-20's two-family owner-occupied clause, and the two do not line up. A landlord who is outside the South Dakota section may still be inside the federal Act, and the reverse is also possible.

### Tea rents are among the highest in South Dakota. What does the deposit cap do?

SDCL 43-32-6.1 caps everything the landlord holds at one month's rent however denominated. At Tea's $1,220 median gross rent, the third highest in the state, that ceiling is over twelve hundred dollars, and the phrase "however denominated" is what stops a pet charge being added on top of a full deposit under a different heading.

### There are only 440 rentals in Tea. Does that matter legally?

Not to the law, but to the strategy. With a rental market that small and one in five households renting, there is no practical alternative unit to move to inside the city. Getting the accommodation right where you are matters more here than in a market where you could simply sign somewhere else.

### How long do I have if the answer is no?

For a charge under South Dakota's human rights chapter, 180 days from the refusal under SDCL 20-13-31, with no discovery language. Federal Fair Housing Act deadlines are set by federal law and run separately, so do not treat the South Dakota window as the only clock in play.

---

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%2Ftea