Why Britney Can't Get Out of Her Conservatorship


UPDATE: After 13 years, Britney’s conservatorship finally ended in November 2021, restoring her right to make decisions about her own life. But there are still over 1 million people with disabilities living under some form of conservatorship or guardianship in the U.S. — people who deserve access to their civil liberties, too.
Conservatorships, which often strip people with disabilities of their civil liberties, have gained media attention through Britney Spears’ efforts to bring her own conservatorship to an end. July is Disability Pride Month, and though Spears’ conservatorship has been highly publicized, she is only one of the more than an estimated one million disabled Americans living under some form of conservatorship or guardianship.
Spears’ story has revealed to the public how restrictive conservatorships are. Under this repressive legal structure, people with disabilities, or people who are perceived to have disabilities, are stripped of their autonomy, losing the ability to spend their own money, choose their own medical care, or even choose who they spend time with.
Although conservatorships are often perceived as protective or neutral, largely because they are court sanctioned, they are reflective of a profound and pervasive paternalism towards people with disabilities.
Watch Now:

During Spears’ harrowing 24-minute court statement calling for an end to her conservatorship in June, amid descriptions of being constantly surveilled and confined against her will, Spears also revealed that although she would like to have children, her conservators refuse to let her have her intrauterine device (IUD) removed. Spears’ experience is part of a long history of people with disabilities — most often people of color — being robbed of their reproductive freedom.
Conservatorships send the harmful message that it is appropriate to trample the rights of people with disabilities. Disabled people deserve autonomy and full access to education, homes, health care, jobs, families, voting, and civic engagement.
In this week’s episode of At Liberty, Zoe Brennan-Krohn, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Disability Rights Project, discusses the implications of conservatorships for Spears and many others.
Listen to Episode 164 of ACLU's "At Liberty" Podcast Below:
In honor of Disability Pride Month, we’re devoting a few episodes to disability rights, starting with a look at conservatorships. Conservatorships are a court-sanctioned way to strip people with disabilities of their civil liberties. The system of...
In honor of Disability Pride Month, we’re devoting a few episodes to disability rights, starting with a look at conservatorships. Conservatorships are a court-sanctioned way to strip people with disabilities of their civil liberties. The system of...

Learn More About the Vlog on This Page
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseAug 2025
Racial Justice
+2 Vlog
Educators, ACLU, NEA-NH, and GLAD Law Sue New Hampshire Over Yet Another Unconstitutional Attack on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
CONCORD, N.H. — A diverse group of educators and advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit today challenging a new anti-equity, anti-inclusion, and anti-diversity law in New Hampshire, which became effective on July 1, 2025, after being signed into law by Governor Ayotte in late June. The law, contained within House Bill 2’s budget provisions, seeks to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion programs pertaining to race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability in New Hampshire schools (including both K-12 public schools as well as both public and private colleges and universities) and public entities like police departments and libraries. According to the lawsuit, this law radically contradicts federal civil rights laws that protect the rights of students with disabilities, violates the First Amendment rights of educators and students, and is vague and ambiguous under the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions. Megan Tuttle, NEA-New Hampshire president, stated, “All Granite State children deserve a high-quality education, safe and welcoming public schools, and the support they need to thrive. We know diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and initiatives are not only legally required in certain contexts but also create a sense of belonging where all students can feel comfortable sharing their ideas and stories. Vague and confusing laws that have the effect of censoring or limiting educators’ abilities to teach and accommodate students who may have special education needs can undermine the high-quality education that students deserve. New Hampshire educators are standing together against HB 2’s unconstitutional attack on those programs and standing up to politicians’ overreach into our classrooms. Our profession should be guided by what’s best for our students, not the threat of funding restrictions and punishment. We will never stop working to make sure every child feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future.” The lawsuit was brought by the state’s largest educator union, National Education Association – New Hampshire (NEA-NH), four school districts (Oyster River Cooperative School District, the Dover School District, the Somersworth School District, and the Grantham School District), trainer and consultant for diversity, equity, and inclusion James M. McKim, Jr., diversity, equity, and inclusion administrator and psychology professor Dottie Morris, and New Hampshire Outright, a nonprofit that provides training in public schools and entities on creating environments of inclusion and belonging for LGBTQ+ students. They are represented by lawyers from a broad coalition of organizations and law firms, including the Vlogof New Hampshire, the national ACLU’s Disability Rights Program and Racial Justice Program, National Education Association-New Hampshire (NEA-NH), GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), and Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon. Devon Chaffee, executive director of the Vlogof New Hampshire, said, “This new law threatens to revoke critical public funding from Granite State schools using vague criteria unless they cease programming and policies aimed at fostering equitable and inclusive environments for all – and that’s unconstitutional. Just like with our other two lawsuits, we will continue to fight these unwarranted and unconstitutional attacks on diversity and inclusion efforts and our right to learn.” The law does not just seek to prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion in public entities and public schools, but it also seeks to strip away millions of dollars in critical state (and possibly federal) public funding if K-12 public school districts guess wrong as to how the New Hampshire Department of Education interprets the vague law’s provisions. According to one estimate, state aid to school districts could amount to more than $1 billion annually. John Shea, the superintendent of the Somersworth School District, said, “Looking at HB2’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion, I’m worried that our legislature and our politicians may have lost sight of what these three words actually represent -- and just how important they are to our public education system. ‘Diversity’ simply is who we are here in Somersworth. It’s not a program, initiative or ideology. It cannot be legislated away. And equity -- or more particularly ‘equitable opportunity’ -- is fundamental to the very idea of universal public education. As is ‘inclusiveness,’ one of our community’s most cherished values. We strive for a welcoming environment for all, one that is strengthened by diverse perspectives. The State’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion are an attack on all of this. Special education, ESOL programs (English for Speakers of Other Languages), and the free and reduced meals program included -- among many other examples. We have no choice but to fight the anti-DEI elements of HB2.” Zoe Brennan-Krohn, director of the VlogDisability Rights Program, said, “New Hampshire's anti-DEI law is an expansive assault on the rights and freedoms of students and educators across the state. Among those potentially swept up in this vague law are students with disabilities, many of whom rely on accessibility and integration programs to succeed at school. Federal disability rights laws require public schools to identify disabled students to increase their achievement; state law cannot prohibit what federal law mandates.” The law is already arbitrarily and selectively being enforced by the state Department of Education, which is aggressively applying it to private (including religious) colleges and universities that receive student scholarship funds through state grant aid programs (like UNIQUE Program state grants and the Governor’s Scholarship), but apparently not private K-12 schools (including religious schools) that receive public funds through Education Freedom Accounts. The law also applies to private colleges and universities (for example, Dartmouth College, Southern New Hampshire University, and Saint Anselm College) that receive any form of state funding, including those that receive state scholarship grants that help New Hampshire residents attend these colleges. For public and private colleges and universities in New Hampshire, the stakes for Granite Staters are severe: the amount at stake includes over $22 million in annual UNIQUE Program state grants and over $2 million in annual Governor’s scholarship program state grants, which are both distributed based on merit and need to New Hampshire residents who attend private or public New Hampshire colleges or universities. “The lack of clarity about the expectations for how to comply with HB2’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion provisions, coupled with the severe and potentially devastating consequences a perceived violation may bring, have educators in a dilemma. As a result of this law, I am aware of several educators who will err on the side of caution out of concern and fear of engaging in some activity that might be perceived as diversity, equity, and inclusion related. The concern and fear of violating HB2’s directive will stifle educators’ abilities to adequately serve all of their students, to create school environments that support students from diverse lived experiences, and to ethically engage in their vocation,” said Dottie Morris, a college administrator focusing on belonging and psychology professor, who is a plaintiff in this case. She is bringing suit only in her individual capacity. Also at stake are the millions of dollars the State provides for operating costs. All of this scholarship money and operational funding could be ripped away if public and private colleges and universities guess wrong as to how to comply with the law or with the education department’s interpretation of it. The lawsuit also raises concerns about how this law could impact school districts’ federally-mandated collection of demographic data, including racial and ethnic groups, in New Hampshire. James T. McKim, Jr., a plaintiff in the case and who works regularly with state and local government bodies to improve operations, including through diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, said, “I am joining this suit because I believe the diversity, equity, and inclusion provision in HB2 goes against our Live Free or Die nature. It is unconstitutional. And it is harmful not only to me personally and to those in the protected classes mentioned in the law, but also to White people in our state and beyond. The work of helping organizations live into diversity, equity, and inclusion helps everyone.” As the law was still making its way through the legislative process, disability rights advocates expressed clear concerns that essential services, programs, and trainings aimed at helping the lives of people with disabilities could be dismantled by the law. The legislature failed to address these concerns in the final bill language that was ultimately signed into law. Jennifer Eber, litigation director for the Disability Rights Center - New Hampshire, who is not part of this lawsuit but opposed the law, said, “Federal laws require school districts to provide specialized instruction and related services to qualifying students with disabilities. These federal laws protect the fundamental right of students with disabilities to access a free appropriate public education. Disability Rights Center -New Hampshire opposes HB2's effort to undermine these federal laws and fully supports the request that the Court find HB2 both unconstitutional and preempted.” The law also impacts LGBTQ+ students in New Hampshire and could be viewed as potentially requiring the removal of certain programming, for example, policies establishing non-discrimination protections for transgender students or making menstrual hygiene products available in gender neutral bathrooms. Heidi Carrington Heath, executive director of New Hampshire Outright, a plaintiff in the case, said, “N.H. Outright has been leading the way in caring for LGBTQ+ youth and their families for over 30 years. That includes a well-respected, evidence-based training program that many schools and communities across the Granite State have benefitted from. We know that creating healthier and stronger environments for LGBTQ+ youth does so for everyone. HB2 is an attempt to silence the voices of vulnerable Granite Staters and puts them at risk in a time when they need stronger supports than ever. We believe that it is critical to challenge this unjust law that is already causing harm to our organization, and communities.” Hannah Hussey, staff attorney at GLAD Law, said, “This law is yet another unconstitutional attempt by elected officials seeking to control and censor valued and trusted educational programs in New Hampshire simply because they don’t like them. Imposing vague bans on programs related to race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability in our public schools and public and private colleges and universities will chill vital programs like special education services in our public schools, initiatives to increase the representation of girls in STEM, and other opportunities and resources to ensure equal opportunity for LGBTQ students, students of color, and students with disabilities. Such programs not only provide vital support for marginalized students, they contribute to an enriching environment for all students to get a well-rounded education, develop critical thinking skills, and learn to appreciate human differences.” The court documents also outline how the law could forbid education programs designed to increase the representation of girls and women in STEM classes, the use of tuition waivers or campus recruitment efforts for older learners 50 and up, or opportunities for religious students through spiritual activities. This lawsuit follows several others filed in New Hampshire challenging anti-equity practices in education, including a 2021 lawsuit against a classroom censorship law that was struck down in federal court in May 2024, and one lawsuit filed on March 5, 2025 in New Hampshire by the Vlogof New Hampshire, national ACLU, NEA, and NEA-NH against the U.S. Department of Education. These practices were halted by the court in April 2024. Dr. Christine Boston, superintendent of Dover Public Schools, said, “The Dover School District provides relevant and engaging learning experiences and curricula to each student, which could violate HB2’s anti-DEI provisions where such individualized instruction is for the purpose of ‘achieving demographic outcomes’ and classifies students based on the groups listed in RSA 354-A:1. The District celebrates the diversity of our student body, pursues equity to provide an individualized education, and creates inclusive learning environments. This commitment is required by the City of Dover school board and the State of New Hampshire. According to the Educational Equity Policy ACB of the Dover School District: ‘The ultimate goal of the Dover School District’s educational system is to assure that each and every student, regardless of background, has access to relevant and engaging learning experiences and curricula that they will need in order to thrive today and into the future. This foundation will allow our students to become dynamic global citizens as they adapt to a rapidly changing world.’ HB2’s vague ban on, for example, 'critical race theory’ and ‘any program, policy, training, or initiative that classifies individuals based on a characteristic identified under RSA 354-A:1’—namely, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin—’for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes, rather than treating individuals equally under the law’ makes me question whether the N.H. Department of Education and others could view the District’s efforts to create relevant and engaging learning environments with well-rounded teachers and staff as violating HB2, thus jeopardizing much needed state and federal funding.” Dr. Robert Shaps, the superintendent of the Oyster River Cooperative School District (ORCSD), said, “HB 2, as written, directly contradicts our legal responsibility to meet our obligations under a wide range of preexisting laws that require school districts to improve learning outcomes for demographic groups. It contains broad and ambiguous declarations coupled with unclearly defined prohibited practices and no guidance. These determinations are subjective and unreviewable, and conflict with our legal and ethical responsibilities to our students. The ability to provide and apply resources and services that ensure all students succeed academically is crucial to their success. In effect, the New Hampshire State Government is using financial force to impose an unclear directive regarding educational learning opportunities, despite its constitutional responsibility to provide adequate school funding without conditions. This unprecedented ability gives them the ability to immediately halt all sources of public funding without warning if a school or district, knowingly or unknowingly, fails to abide by any section of the anti-DEI provisions. We cannot stand by as the state attempts to bypass its own legal responsibilities while failing to provide due process to respond to violations and offering no chance of appeal. We hope this legal action will defend our right to deliver a high-quality public school education and support a democratic, informed, and engaged community as we work together to protect our children’s future.” Christine Downing, the superintendent of the Grantham School District, said, “The Grantham School District is taking a proactive stance to protect its students and educational programs by challenging the diversity, equity, and inclusion prohibition language of HB2. The District is committed to providing a high-quality education that prepares students for a diverse, global society, grounded in principles of inclusion and equity. Due to a severe lack of clarity regarding what constitutes ‘DEI-related programs, initiatives, policies, and training,’ the District believes it's essential to seek legal action. Without clear guidance from the Department of Education, the District cannot risk the possibility of arbitrary and unilateral actions by the Commissioner that could halt all sources of public funding. Joining this legal action is a necessary step to ensure the District can continue to provide the education our community expects and our students deserve.” The complaint is available here: /cases/national-education-association-new-hampshire-v-formella?document=ComplaintCourt Case: National Education Association - New Hampshire v. FormellaAffiliate: New Hampshire -
New HampshireAug 2025
Racial Justice
+2 Vlog
National Education Association - New Hampshire v. Formella
Status: Ongoing -
News & CommentaryJul 2025
Disability Rights
Voting Rights
Accessible Voting is Under Attack 35 Years After the ADA
From restrictive legislation to inaccessible polling places, barriers persist that undermine the rights of voters with disabilities.By: Shayla A. Mitchell -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Disability Rights
Criminal Law Reform
VlogCondemns Trump Executive Order Targeting Disabled and Unhoused People
WASHINGTON – President Trump signed an executive order today directing states to criminalize unhoused people and institutionalize people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorder. The order, titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on American Streets,” directs the Justice Department to expand indefinite forced treatment for people with mental health disabilities or substance use disorder, and those living on the street who “cannot care for themselves.” The order also purports to eliminate federal funding for evidence-based programs, like harm reduction and housing first, that save lives, and directs federal funds toward cities and states that criminalize substance use disorder, punish people for sleeping outdoors, or enforce other laws targeting unhoused people. The order also calls for sweeping federal data collection on unhoused people and those with mental health disabilities, raising serious concerns about surveillance, privacy, and how such data could be used to justify further criminalization. Instead of funding services or support, the administration is prioritizing profiling and control. Scout Katovich, senior staff attorney with the Vlog’s Trone Center for Justice and Equality, issued the following statement in response to the executive order: “From the so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ that will strip health care from millions to this dangerous executive order, every action this administration takes displays remarkable disdain for the rights and dignity of vulnerable people. “Pushing people into locked institutions and forcing treatment won’t solve homelessness or support people with disabilities. The exact opposite is true – institutions are dangerous and deadly, and forced treatment doesn’t work. We need safe, decent, and affordable housing as well as equal access to medical care and voluntary, community-based mental health and evidence-based substance use treatment from trusted providers. But instead of investing in these proven solutions, President Trump is blaming individuals for systemic failures and doubling down on policies that punish people with nowhere else to go – all after signing a law that decimates Medicaid, the number one payer for addiction and mental health services. “Homelessness is a policy failure. Weaponizing federal funding to fuel cruel and ineffective approaches to homelessness won’t solve this crisis.”