Utah governor, state courts hit with lawsuit over new disability law
The Capitol in Salt Lake City is pictured on Thursday, April 10, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Utah state leaders are being sued over a bill passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Spencer Cox in March created a new guardianship system for adults with 'severe' intellectual disability.
In a complaint filed in federal court in Utah earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Disability Law Center argued the law — SB199 — violates the American With Disabilities and the Rehabilitation acts, as well as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants equal protection under the law to all citizens.
Sponsored by Sen. Kevin Stratton, R-Orem, and signed by Cox on March 17, SB199 creates a separate guardianship proceeding for people with a 'severe' intellectual disability. To qualify, a physician or psychologist must sign a letter 'that indicates that the adult is an individual with a severe intellectual disability,' the bill reads.
Guardianship is a legal process where someone, typically a family member, can ask a court to determine whether a person with a disability 18 years old or older is unable to make decisions and manage their affairs.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
With permission from a court, the guardian could then determine personal care and make financial and legal decisions for the disabled person. According to the Utah Parent Center, it can shield disabled people from manipulation and crime, allowing them to live a safer life. But it also limits the civil rights of the person under guardianship, taking away their authority to make adult decisions.
The bill had the backing from several families of people with intellectual disabilities, who say the current system is too broad and not tailored to the most severely handicapped. More than 200 people signed on to a petition in support of the bill.
'It makes sense to create a new and separate guardianship statutory section specifically for those with a severe intellectual disability and a lifelong functional limitation that began as a minor,' said Lisa Thornton, an attorney, when speaking in favor of the bill during this year's legislative session. 'Separating our population from the elderly, or ones who once had capacity, allows for greater protection for those with severe intellectual disabilities without impacting or creating restrictions on the elderly, or those who may regain capacity.'
But during the session, both the ACLU and Disability Law Center spoke out against the bill. On April 18, the groups filed a lawsuit.
In the 42-page complaint, the groups argue the law creates a 'separate, harsher' guardianship system based on a classification of 'severe intellectual disability' — a term they say is 'circular and vague.'
''Severe intellectual disability' is not a term with a clear, well-established meaning among clinicians,' the complaint reads, adding that it requires physicians to make a diagnosis that is typically made by the court.
The law also allows a guardian to 'restrict the disabled person's association with friends and family, the right to control their food and beverage consumption, and the right to restrict any activity that the guardian believes would be harmful,' according to court documents. Typically, guardians can place restrictions on an individual basis — for instance, preventing an abusive former partner from visiting. But SB199 allows for blanket restrictions, which the complaint says is a violation of the person's rights.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Additionally, the law creates a carveout where the disabled person wouldn't be granted an attorney in cases where a parent, grandparent or sibling is the prospective guardian, the groups argue.
For those reasons, the groups allege the state is in violation of the American With Disabilities and the Rehabilitation acts, as well as the 14th Amendment.
'SB199 creates a separate, more restrictive guardianship for a class of people with disabilities and denies them the same rights as others, like the right to talk with friends or relatives, solely based on a doctor describing the severity of a diagnosis,' said Nate Crippes, the public affairs supervising attorney for the Disability Law Center.
'It also doesn't allow for individualized determinations for this population, as is required by the ADA,' he added.'And by limiting the right to associate, if a guardian is abusive or neglectful, we fear no one will know. On the other hand, studies show a person with greater self-determination is more likely to identify an abusive situation and less likely to experience it.'
In addition to Cox and the state of Utah, the lawsuit names Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, the Utah Judicial Council, State Court Administrator Ronald Gordon Jr., the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts and the Utah State Court system.
The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court decides to expedite Oregon's lawsuit challenging Trump's tariffs
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A federal court issued an order on Wednesday to fast-track Oregon's lawsuit challenging tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered to expedite the lawsuit, which was filed in late April in the Court of International Trade in New York. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield welcomed the decision stating, 'We're glad the court recognizes how important this case is by moving it forward quickly.' Investigators believe they spotted Travis Decker hiking in Washington. Here's what to know 'These tariffs are illegal—and they're hurting people. They've driven up costs on everyday goods, making it harder for families and small businesses to make ends meet. One analysis found the added cost is more than $3,800 a month. That's just not sustainable,' Rayfield said. The attorney general noted the order to expedite the lawsuit is only procedural noting, 'This order doesn't address whether the tariffs are legal. So far, every federal judge who's looked at the legality of these tariffs has ruled against them—and we believe the law is on our side.' The lawsuit argues that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, rather, Congress has the power to enact tariffs under Article I of the Constitution. Esquire names Portland bar among the best in the U.S. in 2025 While President Trump's executive orders state the president has the authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Attorney General Rayfield argues that law only applies in an emergency with an 'unusual and extraordinary' threat from abroad and does not give the president the power to impose tariffs. The lawsuit is co-led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. Other states joining the suit include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. The order to expedite the lawsuit comes after Rayfield celebrated a brief legal victory on May 29 when a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade temporarily blocked tariffs Trump imposed against all U.S. trading partners as well as levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now In a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the ruling 'judicial overreach' and stressed the need for the Supreme Court to intervene. 'There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process,' she said. 'America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.' Soon after, however, the Trump administration was granted an appeal to that decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals — upending the lower court's ruling to halt tariffs. KOIN 6 News has reached out to the United States Attorney General's Office. This story will be updated if we receive a response. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth spars with Senate Democrats over Marine deployment to LA anti-ICE riots: 'Not about lethality'
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparred with Democratic senators during a hearing Wednesday about the Trump administration's deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles amid the ongoing anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots. In his opening statement before the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Hegseth reiterated how President Donald Trump charged him to focus on restoring "warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards and readiness" to the Department of Defense – a point Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., later honed in on during his line of questioning for the secretary. Reed noted that the Trump administration federalized 4,000 California National Guard members and deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Reed said what is happening in Los Angeles comes in addition to the approximately 11,000 military personnel, including active duty soldiers and National Guard members, who have deployed to the southern border in support of U.S. Customs and Border Protection – a figure which Hegseth corrected. The Defense secretary said some 13,000 military personnel have deployed to the southern border and that he has visited those troops several times. Johnson Says Hegseth Possibly Sending Marines To Anti-ice Riots Not Heavy-handed: 'Deterring Effect' "People will say that mobilization hurts readiness. When you talk to them, it actually improves their readiness," Hegseth said. Read On The Fox News App Reed told Hegseth, "Your whole ethic seems to be revolved on the lethality of the military force. How is this operation with Marines and National Guardsmen improving their lethality? "Readiness and training and accountability is all about lethality," Hegseth said. "The more ready you are, the more capable you are, the more accountable you are, the higher your standards are, it all makes you more lethal." "The mission in Los Angeles, as you know well, sir, is not about lethality," the secretary continued. "It's about maintaining law and order on behalf of law enforcement agents who deserve to do their job without being attacked by mobs of people. We are very proud that the National Guard and the Marines are on the streets defending the ICE agents, and they will continue." A Defense official told Fox News that the Marines who arrived in Los Angeles are an infantry unit and are still undergoing training, including in nonlethal weapons and use of force protocols in a domestic setting, at Seal Beach. They have not yet been tapped to respond to street demonstrations as of Wednesday morning. Reed argued that "law and order is a civil function under the Constitution," but Hegseth said that "there is plenty of precedent for the U.S. supporting law enforcement officers." "What your military is doing right now is laying concertina wire, guarding buildings, maintaining vehicles for other services," Reed said. "This is not only, I think, illegal, but also a diminution of the readiness and the focus of the military." California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration for federalizing the National Guard to respond to the riots and for tapping the Marines. A federal judge on Tuesday night declined California's request for an immediate restraining order to block Trump's use of military personnel and scheduled a court hearing to further weigh the legality of the matter for Thursday. Federal Judge Refuses To Block Trump's La National Guard Deployment On Newsom's Timeframe In a separate line of questioning at the Senate hearing Wednesday, Hegseth said Newsom "wants to play politics." Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, had asked another witness, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. John D. Caine, if the United States had been "invaded by a foreign nation" or if "there is a rebellion somewhere in the United States." Caine deferred to the Department of Homeland Security to answer border-related questions in terms of a potential invasion and added on the question of a rebellion that, "there are certainly some frustrated folks out there." "It's quite easy to point out that there has been an invasion of 21 million illegals in our country under the previous administration, so this administration was elected to get a hold of that," Hegseth added. "And when you have ICE officers being attacked with concrete blocks, they should be allowed to do their jobs." Schatz interjected, telling Hegseth he would "really like not to create a viral moment." The senator said he was trying to "understand the scope of the order," which, he says, does not specify a location or which Marines or which Guard members would be mobilized. "Did you just mobilize every guard everywhere and every service member everywhere? I mean, create the framework for that," Schatz said. Hegseth said an initial order federalized 2,000 National Guard troops in California and there was a follow-up order for an additional 2,000 members because the situation there "required more resources in order to support law enforcement." "So part of it is getting ahead of a problem, so that if in other places, if there are other riots in places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge National Guard there if necessary," Hegseth said. "And thankfully, in most of those states, you'd have a governor that recognizes the need for it, supports it, and mobilizes it, him or herself. In California, unfortunately, the governor wants to play politics with it." Fox News' Liz Friden contributed to this article source: Hegseth spars with Senate Democrats over Marine deployment to LA anti-ICE riots: 'Not about lethality'


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Keller: Poll finds strong disapproval of how ICE handled arrest of Tufts student
The opinions expressed below are Jon Keller's, not those of WBZ, CBS News or Paramount Global. A new poll of three New England states including Massachusetts finds strong disapproval of how ICE is handling immigrant arrests. "Thank you everyone for all the support and love," said Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk last month as she was freed after 45 days in ICE detention. But some supporters of Ozturk were in a less cheery mood after weeks spent working for the release of the student, hauled off the street by masked ICE agents for the offense of co-authoring an op-ed article in the Tufts student newspaper calling for an end to hostilities in Gaza. "She was never charged with any crime," noted ACLU Executive Director Carol Rose. "The government never produced any evidence that she had done anything wrong." The polls show continued support for President Trump's overall handling of immigration. But not for sending armed troops to the streets of Los Angeles, and definitely not for siccing ICE on the likes of Ozturk, whose arrest video made news all over the world. Poll shows disapproval Ozturk case A new Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll of voters in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island finds a whopping 70% disapproved of the way her case was handled, with 58% strongly objecting. Just 16% approved. Surveillance video shows Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk apprehended in Somerville, MA, on March 25. CBS Boston "They like the intent, but they don't like the methodology," said Suffolk pollster Dave Paleologos. "She didn't creep over the border in the back of a van and meet up with some seedy characters to plot to protest and overthrow the government. It could be your niece, your nephew, your grandchild and that's troubling." It's an overreach even the most hardline backers of the president's immigrant crackdown find hard to swallow. "Even within the Republican party there's compassion and empathy and pushback in terms of how ICE is treating these cases," notes Paleologos. It's pretty clear that voters wanted something done about dangerous criminals here illegally. And now they're making it clear that a mild-mannered college student who co-wrote a benign op-ed piece isn't what they had in mind. But Paleologos suggests the proof will be in the crime statistics. If they take a nosedive, Trump will be widely applauded for his policies despite its mistakes. If they don't, more than a few will wonder -- what on earth was this all about?