Service dogs working to ameliorate limitations for disabled individuals provide equality of access, a mandate firmly established by the United States Department of Justice. Unfortunately, imprecision in the law and policy regarding administration of service dogs as a valued public utility for disabled individuals has invited excessively broad, confusing, and problematic interpretations of how service dogs are regulated. The result has been a profound diminishment in public respect for service dogs in public spaces, which has the discriminatory effect of weakening equal access for disabled individuals. Narrower language would substantively regulate service dogs and reinforce the validity of their presence among the public and in public spaces.

Dogs hold an important place in human history as our long-time complements in the evolutionary chain, working alongside humans by supplying security, companionship, and task-specific functions. The term “working dogs” refers to our canine counterparts who perform a wide variety of tasks, including herding, hunting, tracking, search and rescue, service, and many related designations. However prolific, dogs performing work functions for humans have been assigned distinctions that are, by definition and understanding, varied, complicated, and hindered by the ambiguities and lack of policies around them.

Key intervening qualities among different types of working dog identifications lies in the type of specialized training each receives. Service dogs are defined generally as dogs who perform beneficial functions for disabled individuals relating directly to ameliorating a person’s physical or psychiatric limitation. Typically, service dogs are distinguished from emotional support dogs, which are commonly associated with comforting qualities. However, emotional support dogs can perform tasks identical to those provided by service dogs when their supportive task alleviates a physical manifestation of a disability triggered by an emotional event. When a physical disability presents secondary to an emotional cause, the dog is considered, under legal identification, to be an emotional support animal.

Working dogs are a part of the public domain and landscape, recognized by state and federal government divisions. However, no clear standard exists for certification, licensure, proof, training curriculum, or identification of working dogs. Online non-profit and for-profit marketplaces sell vests emblazoned with “certified” language along with coordinating “official” certificates and other forms of identification for service dogs, but these ostensible certifications lack any real regulating structure. In fact, they are only as official as they are perceived to be.

The increasing popularity of websites such as Support Pets, which attempts to entice visitors with “three easy steps” that allow people to take their pets with them anywhere “even if they have a ‘no pets’ policy,” confirms the escalating need for clear standards and definitions for service dogs. Websites like Support Pets target social media accounts of people who have indicated they have interest in pets to appeal to those who have interest in traveling with them more freely in the way service dogs are able. Stark absence of firm regulatory policy for service dogs, and language expressly employed by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) effects a regulatory climate where there are no official or legal certifications for service dogs, and no certified trainers for them. Plenary effects of this purposefully generalized and imprecise language lends credibility to public suspicion when dogs are brought into spaces where animals are generally prohibited. This suspicion casts doubt on all service dogs in public spaces which can lead to bad feeling and disrespect for genuine working service dogs and the individuals who rely on them.

Diminishment in credibility of service dogs is most problematic for individuals who rely upon their service animals to navigate spaces normally barring animals. Conflicts arising over whether a dog brought into a public space is a service animal, have severely limited avenues available to parties for registering complaints and seeking redress for harms. Absent a guiding legal standard, the parties to these disputes are forced to seek relief from already over-burdened court systems. Vague statutes concerning service dogs means courts themselves must grapple with statutory language and purpose to discern whether and when a service dog claim falls within regulations not written to address such claims.

However, in hearing litigation arising from claims of emotional distress related to conflicts involving service dogs in public places and discrimination against them, courts consistently rule in favor of the disabled individual when regulatory elements appear to be met. Lack of touch-stone legal authority means the courts are required to discern policy from the clear intention of the ADA, that service animals be unfailingly allowed into public spaces, on a case-by-case basis.

Burdensome ramifications of policy vagaries for service animals suggests the need for diligent investigation into existing policies and procedures in substantive law. Implementation and interpretation of these laws leads to further testing of the ways they are actually applied through case law when courts are tasked to settle conflicts surrounding them. Where the United States Government, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), and subsequently through the ADA, has stumbled to exert regulatory foothold, there is little wonder that widespread uncertainty surrounds the legal status of service dogs.