Utah governor, state courts hit with lawsuit over new disability law
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
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump's elections power grab
MAIL FAIL — Donald Trump has long been a critic of voting by mail, even falsely blaming the explosion of mail-in voting in 2020 for his electoral loss. This week he took his grievances to the next level: Trump said that he would soon be moving to ban the practice. In a lengthy Truth Social diatribe, Trump said he would 'lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we're at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT,' claiming no other country in the world uses mail-in voting. Trump continued, saying he would sign 'an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections. Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.' There's just one problem: the president's entire premise for his purported executive order is bunk. The U.S. is far from the only country to allow for vote by mail. The vast majority of Americans already vote on paper ballots, and voting machines are faster, cheaper and more accurate at tabulating those ballots than counting by hand. More important, the Constitution is clear on who has the power to regulate elections: the states and Congress, not the president. 'The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,' the Elections Clause reads. 'It says nothing about the president of the United States being able to step in by waving a magic wand in the Oval Office,' Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat and one of the country's longest-serving chief election officers, told Nightly. It's not clear what form any prospective presidential order would take. In the Oval Office on Monday, Trump said 'the best lawyers in the country' are writing the executive order 'to end mail-in ballots because they're corrupt.' The White House responded to a series of questions from Nightly on the forthcoming EO — including where the president's legal authority would come from — with a statement from spokesperson Harrison Fields that answered none of them, instead blasting Democrats having 'eroded faith in our elections.' When asked at a Tuesday press briefing about the White House's plans, press secretary Karoline Leavitt was vague on details, saying there will be 'many discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill and also our friends in state legislatures across the country.' The mere assertion that he has the authority to issue national election policy by decree is a fairly audacious power grab, one that crosses a significant red line on elections — a line that Republicans have vigorously defended in the past. 'We used to at least pretend that we had some intrinsic fear of centralized power, especially presidential power,' said Stephen Richer, the former GOP Maricopa County, Ariz., recorder who became a Republican pariah for loudly standing up for the security of elections post-2020. 'And I think when you're talking about the means for installing federal officers, you should be doubly skeptical of any centralization of that power.' It's not hard to find examples of this skepticism. Sixteen Republican secretaries of state called Democrats' H.R. 1 — their sweeping elections legislation first introduced in 2019 — a 'unnecessary bill [that] federalizes and micromanages state election systems,' arguing Congress should not 'dictate a one-size-fits-all election policy to the states.' Similarly, fifteen Republican secretaries called in 2022 for Biden to rescind an executive order that directed federal agencies to register people to vote. 'If any adjustments need to be made, such adjustments are the province of Congress, not the Executive branch,' they wrote. The pushback thus far has been much more muted. When Trump issued an executive order earlier this year looking to dictate requirements around voter registration and mail balloting, Democratic-led states sued — and federal courts blocked key parts of that order as an attempt to usurp the constitutional powers of Congress and the states. Should Trump go ahead with trying to outright ban mail voting, Democrats expect the same result. 'I sure hope that the White House knows that the courts stand ready to significantly pare back executive orders where they step over the constitutional line, and we're going to be there as we were in round one,' Simon, the Minnesota Democrat said. While Republicans are not ringing the alarm bells about Trump's intentions, they too want to defend the states' reputation as so-called laboratories of democracy — and still want to gingerly remind the president of that line. 'Couldn't be more appreciative and supportive of President Trump's focus on election integrity,' Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, who heads both the bipartisan National Association of Secretaries of State and the Republican Secretaries of State Committee, said in a statement, stressing he was speaking in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the organizations. But 'regarding specifics mentioned in the President's social media post, we will wait to see the details before commenting,' he continued. 'That said, election procedure decisions have and should continue to be made at the state level, and I trust President Trump will keep these important principles in mind as he crafts future executive orders.' Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at zmontellaro@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @ZachMontellaro. What'd I Miss? — DOJ goes 0-3 in requests to unseal Jeffrey Epstein grand jury materials: A federal judge rejected the Justice Department's effort to unseal grand jury transcripts and exhibits in the Jeffrey Epstein case today, writing that the government itself is the 'logical party' to make the Epstein files public and criticizing its motion as a 'diversion' tactic. 'The information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales in comparison to the Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice,' U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote in a 14-page opinion. Berman's decision is the third by a federal judge to deny nearly identical motions by the Justice Department to make public certain grand jury material in the cases of Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, and his onetime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. — Pentagon says US will play a minimal role in Ukraine's security guarantee: The Pentagon's top policy official told a small group of allies Tuesday night that the U.S. plans to play a minimal role in any Ukraine security guarantees, one of the clearest signs yet that Europe will need to shoulder the burden of keeping lasting peace in Kyiv. The comments from Elbridge Colby, the Defense undersecretary for policy, came in response to questions from European military leaders in a huddle led by Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Dan Caine. Defense chiefs from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Finland pushed the U.S. side to disclose what it would provide in troops and air assets to help Ukraine maintain a peace deal with Russia, according to a European official and another person briefed on the talks. — Gabbard to cut ODNI staff by nearly 50 percent: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced plans today to overhaul her office, cutting hundreds of staff and consolidating teams focused on countering malign influence and cyber threats. The move, dubbed ODNI 2.0, is the latest effort by the Trump administration to slim down the federal government, and comes after a wave of top-level departures at the ODNI's Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center earlier this year. According to a fact sheet released by ODNI, Gabbard has already eliminated 500 staff and reduced the office's size by 30 percent since she was sworn in to the role in February. The new plan would boost that number to over 40 percent and save more than $700 million annually. — Trump calls on Fed board member Cook to resign: President Donald Trump called on Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook to resign today after housing finance regulator Bill Pulte opened a new avenue of attack against the central bank. Pulte in recent days referred Cook to the Justice Department on allegations that she 'potentially [committed] mortgage fraud,' saying she had named two different properties as her primary residence on loan applications in 2021. Fed board members can be removed only 'for cause,' a provision that has not been fully litigated but has generally been interpreted to mean that the president can't fire a central banker over policy disagreements. — Fear of Trump funding 'wrench' escalates as Congress faces shutdown cliff: President Donald Trump's budget director has talked about attempting the ultimate override of Congress' funding prerogatives during the final 45 days of the fiscal year — and that time is now. With six weeks left until Oct. 1, lawmakers are staring down a government shutdown deadline alongside the threat of a 'pocket rescission,' a controversial White House tactic to cancel federal cash without the consent of Congress. It's also a ploy that the government's top watchdog, along with key lawmakers from both parties, say is illegal. 'The money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' White House budget chief Russ Vought said last month in defense of the gambit, adding it has 'been used before.' — Obama backs California effort to redraw districts in response to Texas: Former President Barack Obama is supporting California's mid-cycle redistricting effort as a 'responsible approach' to Republicans drawing new maps in Texas. Obama praised California Gov. Gavin Newsom's ballot measure proposal to redraw congressional districts and tilt at least five congressional districts in the state towards Democrats at a fundraiser on Tuesday for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. 'I believe that Governor Newsom's approach is a responsible approach,' he said, according to excerpts obtained by POLITICO. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.' — Pentagon says US will play a minimal role in Ukraine's security guarantee: The Pentagon's top policy official told a small group of allies Tuesday night that the U.S. plans to play a minimal role in any Ukraine security guarantees, one of the clearest signs yet that Europe will need to shoulder the burden of keeping lasting peace in Kyiv. The comments from Elbridge Colby, the Defense undersecretary for policy, came in response to questions from European military leaders in a huddle led by Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Dan Caine. Defense chiefs from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Finland pushed the U.S. side to disclose what it would provide in troops and air assets to help Ukraine maintain a peace deal with Russia, according to a European official and another person briefed on the talks. AROUND THE WORLD ARCTIC SABER-RATTLING — Russia's saber-rattling in the Arctic is forcing Canada to deepen military cooperation with its Nordic NATO allies — a marked policy shift away from the United States. Prime Minister Mark Carney has dispatched two top Cabinet ministers to Sweden and Finland this week in pursuit of new defense deals — including a look at Sweden's Saab Gripen fighter jet. Canada had previously decided on the Lockheed Martin F-35, a flagship export under President Donald Trump. But amid a trade war, at a time when other allies are turning away from the U.S. war plane, Canada is reconsidering its C$19-billion plan to buy a new fleet of F-35s. 'Clearly, there are trade tensions [with the U.S.], and we want to become closer to our friends,' Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said Monday as Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch formally welcomed her to Stockholm. MOSCOW'S HARD LINE — Moscow isn't shifting on what it considers to be acceptable security guarantees for Ukraine, a top Kremlin official said today. The comments by Moscow's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov undercut hopes that any progress has been made toward ending the Ukraine war since Russian President Vladimir Putin met with U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday in Alaska. Lavrov's remarks further indicate that the Kremlin has not softened on its maximalist positions on Ukraine: that it becomes a neutral rump state; drastically reduces its military; and abandons its NATO membership aspirations after Russia is finished with it. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP THE NEW AMERICAN SOUTH — In 1995, the rapper André 3000 declared that the cultural weathervane was pointing southward. A year later, his native Atlanta hosted the Olympics, one of the first signals that the South was beginning to see a reverse of the Great Migration that defined the region 50 years earlier. Since then, it has produced cultural touches such as Beyoncé, Mr. Beast and Bama Rush. The South's transformation into a major cultural hub was no accident. Over the last three decades, tax breaks, education incentives and growing cultural and economic clout have pulled more Americans and immigrants to the South. Amanda Mull reports on the region's transformation for Bloomberg. Parting Image Jacqueline Munis contributed to this newsletter. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Gabbard: ODNI to slash costs, workforce by 40% as part of major intel agency overhaul
Gabbard said ODNI 'must make serious changes' to combat 'abuse of power, unauthorized leaks ... and politicized weaponization' of U.S. intel agencies. WASHINGTON – Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced Aug. 20 that her office overseeing all U.S. intelligence agencies will undergo a massive reorganization and slash its spending by 40% to combat "abuse of power" and "politicized weaponization of intelligence." Gabbard called the overhaul ODNI 2.0 in a news release, and its broad contours suggest it is the biggest restructuring of the agency since it was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist acts to improve intelligence sharing and operations. One of its goals is "reduce bloat by nearly 50%," in a reference to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's workforce. The move is expected to save taxpayers over $700 million annually and better enable ODNI to focus on 'fulfilling its critical role of serving as the central hub for intelligence integration, strategic guidance, and oversight over the Intelligence Community,' said the late afternoon news release. 'Over the last 20 years, ODNI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence,' Gabbard said in the release. 'ODNI and the IC must make serious changes to fulfill its responsibility to the American people and the U.S. Constitution by focusing on our core mission: find the truth and provide objective, unbiased, timely intelligence to the President and policymakers.' Intel agency long a focus of Trump's ire The ODNI was established in April 2005 after the blue ribbon 9/11 Commission exposed systemic failures across the intelligence community. Its purpose was to integrate intelligence from – and provide oversight over – all of the various intel elements of the U.S. government, including the CIA, the eavesdropping National Security Agency and several military intelligence agencies. Trump has frequently attacked the agency as politicized against him, and has vowed, along with Gabbard, to downsize and restructure it. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sponsored legislation June 27 to cap the ODNI staff at 650, down from what he said was about 1,600, to eliminate certain reporting requirements and to transfer some key counterintelligence and counterproliferation responsibilities back to the CIA. The ODNI news release said ODNI 2.0 will eliminate redundant missions, functions and personnel, and make 'critical investments in areas that support the President's national intelligence priorities.' It will also expose what President Donald Trump and Gabbard have called the politicization and weaponization of intelligence, and hold 'bad actors accountable.' Going after those involved in 'Russia Hoax' That effort expands on a campaign that Gabbard already has launched to investigate Democrats in the Obama and Biden administrations that she claims falsified intelligence to concoct a false 'Russia Hoax' about Trump complicity in the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 election. Multiple investigations and reports, including a bipartisan effort by the Senate Intelligence Committee, have found that Russia did indeed meddle in the 2016 election to help Trump defeat his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. One key target of the new overhaul is the ODNI's efforts to call out Russia for continued interference in U.S. elections, including the 2024 president campaign, through its multi-agency Foreign Malign Influence Center or FMIC. Refocusing FMIC's mission will save American taxpayers at least $7 million per year, according to an ODNI 2.0 fact sheet released by the spy agency. It did not provide details of what that refocus will entail, or a similar plan to overhaul the ODNI's National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center (NCBC) and its Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC). 'ODNI's hyper-focus on election-related work notably began in 2017, immediately following the publication of the manufactured Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) falsely alleging Putin 'aspired' to help President Trump win the 2016 election,' the fact sheet said. 'No confidence' Gabbard is right person to conduct ODNI overhaul Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat and vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, acknowledged in a statement that there is broad, bipartisan agreement that the ODNI 'is in need of thoughtful reform.' The current Intelligence Authorization Act directs Gabbard to submit a plan to Congress outlining her proposed changes, Warner said, 'and we will carefully review her proposals and conduct rigorous oversight to ensure any reforms strengthen, not weaken, our national security.' 'But given Director Gabbard's track record of politicizing intelligence – including her decision just yesterday to revoke security clearances from career national security officials – I have no confidence that she is the right person to carry out this weighty responsibility," Warner said. Gabbard announced Aug. 19 that Trump had directed her office to revoke security clearances from 37 former intelligence officials for 'politicizing and manipulating intelligence.' Most were affiliated with the Biden and Obama administrations or signatories to public protests of Trump's policies. Warner and other Democrats have also criticized Gabbard for forming a task force that amounts to nothing less than a "witch hunt" for officers and analysts within the 18 U.S. intelligence agencies it deems disloyal to Trump. Cotton, the committee chair, called ODNI 2.0 'an important step to return the department to its original size, scope and mission.' 'I look forward to working with @DNIGabbard to implement these reforms and ensuring the IC focuses on its core mission: stealing secrets from our adversaries,' Cotton said in a post on X. This story has been updated to include additional information.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
