Utah News Dispatch
Disability Law Center says it’s doing its job, but a lawmaker calls it ‘anti-family’
The Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities hosts a reception after the rally in the Utah State Capitol rotunda on Monday, Jan. 26, 2026. (Will Ruzanski/Utah News Dispatch
A state lawmaker says it’s time to reevaluate a Utah nonprofit’s longtime status as a designated watchdog for those with disabilities, to the dismay of many supporters and clients.
Every state has a protection and advocacy agency, authorized by federal law to investigate abuse, neglect and violations of people’s rights. Since 1978, that agency in Utah has been the Disability Law Center based in Salt Lake City.
Facing potential cuts to vital programs, Utahns rally for ‘Disability Advocacy Day’ at the Capitol
Speaking to colleagues on a legislative panel this week, the sponsor of the proposal to reconsider that relationship cited frustration from families and caregivers surrounding the center’s work tied to Utah’s legal guardianship system. Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said they’ve told him the Disability Law Center, “in some instances, comes across as very anti-family.”
Some of those exasperated parents also appealed to the Senate committee on Wednesday. But so did the center’s supporters. They said it does a good job and they’re afraid of what will happen if it loses its status and related federal funding.
With an interpreter reading aloud as she shared her experience in sign language, Kristi Lee Mortensen said that while a student at the University of Utah, she was denied full access to an education because American Sign Language interpreters weren’t provided as they should have been.
“I didn’t have the legal knowledge or the resources to challenge a major institution on my own. The Disability Law Center stepped in, and because of them, my rights were enforced and access was provided,” Mortensen said.
Frustrated parents who criticized the Disability Law Center spoke of wanting to protect their vulnerable adult children but not having the benefit of legal help from the center when seeking guardianship.
But its attorneys cannot help them as a matter of federal law, said Nate Crippes, the center’s public affairs supervising attorney.
“We represent people with disabilities, and so we would not be permitted. It would be a conflict of interest for us to represent parents in guardianship proceedings,” Crippes said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
His organization and the ACLU of Utah sued the state last year over a new state law on guardianship. They argued the changes make it too easy for those with intellectual disabilities to have their rights turned over to guardians who could cut them off from seeing friends and family, violating federal antidiscrimination law.
The groups noted the law would take away a person’s right to an attorney if their sibling, parent or grandparent is the one seeking guardianship – a change they said would make the court process unfair, but that families said could help them try to protect their loved ones.
Many who advocated for the 2025 law saw the center’s opposition as an attack on their families.
“You would presume that they are here to help those with disabilities,” said Lisa Thornton, a guardianship attorney who said her daughter has a significant intellectual disability. “But their pattern of selective representation and repeated advocacy and litigation harming those with severe intellectual disabilities shows an agenda.”
But Crippes told Utah News Dispatch the goal is to safeguard the rights of people with disabilities.
“Even if their parents disagree with us, our position would be, ultimately we have to represent the best interest of these individuals,” Crippes said.
He said the center is not “anti-family.” It routinely works with clients and their parents and has advocated for the state to provide more help to those filing for guardianship, Crippes said.
This year’s proposal is a resolution rather than a bill, expressing an opinion from lawmakers but without the force of law. A spokesperson for Gov. Spencer Cox did not respond to a request for comment Thursday about whether he’s in agreement.
Ultimately, the decision is with the federal government, and a change requires good cause — or a legally justifiable reason — Crippes said. It’s not clear which agency would take over if his were to lose its designation.
The Senate panel advanced the measure Wednesday in a 7-2 vote. It awaits approval from the full Senate.
