logo
Utah governor, state courts hit with lawsuit over new disability law

Utah governor, state courts hit with lawsuit over new disability law

Yahoo02-05-2025
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The latest effort to toss Alina Habba draws on an unusual source: Aileen Cannon
The latest effort to toss Alina Habba draws on an unusual source: Aileen Cannon

Politico

time32 minutes ago

  • Politico

The latest effort to toss Alina Habba draws on an unusual source: Aileen Cannon

'As Judge Cannon explained in Trump, when executive officials deliberately engineer an appointment in violation of statutory and constitutional mandates, the only effective remedy is dismissal or, at the very least, disqualification of the unconstitutionally appointed officer and her subordinates,' Mirigliano wrote in a filing Wednesday. Mirigliano's bid is a long shot, meant to spare his client from further prosecution for gun and drug crimes that were brought by a grand jury and filed in 2024 when there was no uncertainty about the leadership of the U.S. attorney's office. But it's one of the first efforts to turn Cannon's ruling against the Trump administration's interests. The case, which is pending before U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, an Obama appointee based in Pennsylvania, challenges Habba's authority to run the office and prosecute criminal cases. Brann is not yet sold that questions around Habba's appointment should derail ongoing prosecutions that have largely been carried out by assistant U.S. attorneys. However, the issue has roiled federal criminal cases in New Jersey while the matter remains unresolved. Cannon last summer concluded in a 93-page ruling that Smith's appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and, in turn, she dismissed the federal criminal case against Trump charging him with amassing highly sensitive national security secrets at Mar-a-Lago and then obstructing government efforts to reclaim them. Though Smith appealed Cannon's ruling, the case was ultimately dropped after Trump won the 2024 election, so the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals never ruled on the matter. Cannon's ruling itself does not bind any other court, but Brann could consider it as he weighs Giraud's argument. Cannon's ruling doesn't deal directly with the roundabout way Trump maneuvered to keep Habba in her role. But her ruling made broad assertions about limitations on presidential appointment powers. 'It is undisputed, and correct, that all United States Attorneys (93 currently) have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate throughout our Nation's history, except that Congress has permitted the Attorney General to appoint interim United States Attorneys with specific restrictions,' Cannon ruled.

Trump's tariffs deadline approaches with more questions than answers
Trump's tariffs deadline approaches with more questions than answers

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Trump's tariffs deadline approaches with more questions than answers

On May 28, The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down President Trump's global 'reciprocal tariffs,' most of which are based on Trump's claim that the U.S. trade deficit is a national emergency. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which immediately stayed the other court's order and permitted the tariffs to continue while it considers the case. Whether Trump's tariffs are canceled or not will make a big difference for U.S. consumers, businesses and trading partners. If the current tariffs are declared illegal, billions of dollars of tariffs collected will have to be refunded. Furthermore, Trump would be without legal authority to implement the revised tariffs in trade deal 'frameworks' he has already negotiated with the United Kingdom, Japan, the European Union and other countries. The courts could allow Trump to use different, more limited tariff-making powers, but this would only apply in the future. All we know for now is that we will have to wait. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, using an unusual procedure of having its 11 active judges hearing the case jointly, will hold oral argument today and will probably issue its decision promptly afterward. The process will then almost certainly move to the Supreme Court, which could decide the case quickly, or delay it until this fall or later. In any case, Trump's promise to finish ' 90 deals in 90 days ' (now 120 days) with U.S. trading partners by Aug. 1 hangs in the balance. He has an incentive to complete deals quickly in advance of a possible Supreme Court decision against his tariffs that would remove much of his negotiating leverage. U.S. trading partners are also planning their negotiations with this possibility in mind. In the meantime, Trump has set the tariffs unilaterally, raising the baseline level from 10 percent to 15 percent for most countries having completed deals. It is important to note that the Court of International Trade decision covers only the universal tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which delegated tariff authority from Congress to the president. It does not affect Trump's authority to impose national security tariffs on specific products such as steel, aluminum and autos, which are based on a different trade statute. It is difficult to predict the outcome of the final court decision. The Constitution assigns tariff-making authority exclusively to Congress, but it has delegated emergency powers to the president in certain cases by passing various statutes. Usually there are limits on such tariffs by product, country and duration., but Trump has applied his reciprocal tariffs so broadly that he has essentially seized complete control over trade policy. He has set and reset tariff rates unilaterally against all countries individually. This level of presidential trade policy discretion is unprecedented. In nearly all previous cases, U.S. courts have treated Trump's delegated trade authority from Congress with great deference. Once Congress allows the president to act on an emergency, according to the courts' reasoning, it must allow for a generous interpretation of the delegated powers, as long as they are consistent with the thrust of the statute that granted them. Trump's global reciprocal tariff policies, however, have gone well beyond what any other president has done in setting tariffs. Legal scholars believe the result will depend on an earlier trade law case from 1975, which indicated that an 'emergency' based on trade imbalances, as Trump claimed, would need to use a different law, section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, rather than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Remedies under the more narrowly focused section 122 limit tariffs to 15 percent, applied equally to all countries for no longer than five months. A key point in this interpretation is that Trump's tariffs were not simply unprecedented and unauthorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but they unlawfully circumvented section 122. Under this argument, if a trade balance emergency exists, Congress intended that the president use the proportionate section 122 remedy, not the excessive invocation of tariff-making power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act Trump would vehemently oppose this outcome, since it would reduce his tariff-making power and prevent him from bargaining for separate deals with each trading partner. Yet allowing the Court of International Trade ruling to stand would restore constitutional and statutory order to tariffs. The Constitution set out a deliberative process for U.S. trade policy, not the rule by fiat of the president. The Supreme Court may ultimately declare Trump's tariffs to be legal, allowing him to continue exercising virtually unlimited power over tariffs and trade policy. Yet the highest court can also restore normal order to trade policy. If Trump then wants to continue his International Emergency Economic Powers Act global tariffs, Congress will have to provide the appropriate legislation. The Republican majorities in Congress will then have to take responsibility for publicly endorsing and voting for tariff hikes and take the consequences in coming elections for the damage they cause.

Watch live: Federal appeals court weighs legality of Trump tariffs
Watch live: Federal appeals court weighs legality of Trump tariffs

The Hill

time2 hours ago

  • The Hill

Watch live: Federal appeals court weighs legality of Trump tariffs

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear arguments Thursday morning on the legality of President Trump's sweeping tariff agenda — one day before Trump's reciprocal taxes on a host of countries is set to go into effect. Under the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to impose import taxes on foreign trading partners. Lawmakers have argued that the president can't act unless he is granted that authority. Trump has leaned on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify his trade moves. The law grants the president power to impose 'necessary' sanctions during an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' The event is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store