This article is for informational and educational use only. It does not provide legal, financial, or tax advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Legal requirements can differ by jurisdiction and may change without notice. A qualified professional can address specific facts and current rules.
Key Facts
- National overview: ABA’s 2012 Resolution 100 urged state, territorial, and local legislative bodies to adopt comprehensive breed neutral dangerous dog and reckless owner laws with due process protections and to repeal breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.
- National overview: The 2012 Resolution 100 report said a primary reason for repeal was that breed discriminatory laws are inconsistent with traditional notions of due process.
- National overview: The 2012 report described due process as requiring adequate notice to the public and enforcement officers to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory application of the law.
- National overview: The 2012 report stated that breed discriminatory legislation often vaguely defines the targeted breed.
- Federal level: Under 28 CFR 35.136, a public entity generally must modify policies to permit service animals and may ask removal if the animal is out of control with ineffective handler control, or if the animal is not housebroken.
- Federal level: Under 28 CFR 35.136, a public entity must not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, may make two inquiries, and must not require documentation such as proof the animal is certified, trained, or licensed.
- Federal level: Under 28 CFR 35.104, a service animal is a dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability, and emotional support, comfort, or companionship does not count as work or tasks.
- Federal level: Under 28 CFR 36.302, a public accommodation generally must make reasonable modifications to permit service animals and may ask removal only when the animal is out of control and the handler does not effectively control it, or when the animal is not housebroken.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- What 2012 Resolution 100 urged in 2012
- Due process rationale in the 2012 report
- Why this historical advocacy mattered for later legal debates
- Federal disability law uses defined terms for service animals
- ADA service animal rules for public entities under 28 CFR 35.136
- ADA service animal rules for public accommodations under 28 CFR 36.302
- Quick comparison of ADA service animal rules for public entities and public accommodations
- Policy framing versus regulatory rules
- Related archive reading on ABA annual meeting materials
- Sources
This archive recovery focuses on ABA’s 2012 Resolution 100 and how it used due process language to argue for breed-neutral dangerous dog and reckless owner laws; it then contrasts that policy approach with the current federal ADA service-animal regulations that use defined terms and narrow, behavior-based exceptions.
What 2012 Resolution 100 urged in 2012
The American Bar Association’s Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section resolutions listing describes “2012 Resolution 100” as an “urges” call for state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions (TIPS Sponsored ABA Resolutions).
The 2012 House of Delegates report repeats the same “RESOLVED” wording, urging adoption of comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership, and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, while also urging repeal of breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions (2012 ABA Due Process Breed-Neutral Dangerous Dog Resolution 100 report to the House of Delegates (PDF)).
Due process rationale in the 2012 report
The 2012 report states that one primary reason for repeal is that breed-discriminatory laws are inconsistent with traditional notions of due process (2012 ABA Due Process Breed-Neutral Dangerous Dog Resolution 100 report to the House of Delegates (PDF)).
The report also connects due process to adequate notice, explaining that due process requires laws to provide adequate notice to the public and to the officers charged with enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory application of the law (2012 ABA Due Process Breed-Neutral Dangerous Dog Resolution 100 report to the House of Delegates (PDF)).
The report criticizes breed-discriminatory legislation for definitional uncertainty, stating that breed-discriminatory legislation often “vaguely define[s] the targeted breed” (2012 ABA Due Process Breed-Neutral Dangerous Dog Resolution 100 report to the House of Delegates (PDF)).
Why this historical advocacy mattered for later legal debates
Resolution 100 does not set binding law by itself; it instead lays out a due-process argument about why a legal scheme that depends on a contested classification may raise notice and definitional problems, which can matter in later discussions about how laws apply in practice.
Federal disability law uses defined terms for service animals
Current ADA regulations use a specific definition of a “service animal,” stating that a service animal is a dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, and that emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship does not constitute work or tasks for purposes of that definition (eCFR 28 CFR 35.104 Definitions).
ADA service animal rules for public entities under 28 CFR 35.136
For public entities, the ADA regulations generally require modifying policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability (eCFR 28 CFR 35.136 Service animals).
The same rule allows a public entity to ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal only under narrow, behavior-based conditions, including when the animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, or when the animal is not housebroken (eCFR 28 CFR 35.136 Service animals).
28 CFR 35.136 also limits disability-related questions and documentation, stating that a public entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal, and shall not require documentation such as proof that the animal is certified, trained, or licensed (eCFR 28 CFR 35.136 Service animals).
ADA service animal rules for public accommodations under 28 CFR 36.302
For public accommodations, the ADA regulations generally require modifying policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability (eCFR 28 CFR 36.302 Modifications in policies, practices, or procedures (service animals)).
The regulations permit removal only under narrow conditions, including when the animal is out of control and the handler does not effectively control it, or when the animal is not housebroken (eCFR 28 CFR 36.302 Modifications in policies, practices, or procedures (service animals)).
Quick comparison of ADA service animal rules for public entities and public accommodations
| Topic | Public entities | Public accommodations |
|---|---|---|
| Regulation | 28 CFR 35.136 | 28 CFR 36.302 |
| Core rule | Modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit service animals | Modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit service animals |
| Removal exceptions | Out of control with ineffective handler control, or not housebroken | Out of control with ineffective handler control, or not housebroken |
Policy framing versus regulatory rules
In the 2012 resolution, ABA used urging language directed at state and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to change how dangerous-dog laws treat breed-based categories (2012 ABA Due Process Breed-Neutral Dangerous Dog Resolution 100 report to the House of Delegates (PDF)).
By contrast, the ADA service-animal regulations use binding regulatory wording for covered entities, including limits on disability-related questioning and narrow, behavior-based removal exceptions in 28 CFR 35.136 (eCFR 28 CFR 35.136 Service animals).
The ADA service-animal regulations for public accommodations in 28 CFR 36.302 likewise require modification and restrict removal to narrow, behavior-based conditions (eCFR 28 CFR 36.302 Modifications in policies, practices, or procedures (service animals)).
Related archive reading on ABA annual meeting materials
This recovery fits within a broader set of ABA archive posts that pull individual annual meeting items back into view, including ABA annual meeting archive coverage.
