The Dress Slipped. The Cigarette Came Out. Then Came the Tabloids.

Britney Spears is back in the headlines—and not in a good way. While on a flight to LAX, she allegedly lit up a cigarette mid-air and flight staff had to intervene. This followed another eyebrow-raising moment: her wardrobe malfunction during a sultry dancing video she posted to Instagram, where her dress slipped unexpectedly in front of cameras.

But here’s the deeper question: If this had happened three years ago, could she have been locked away under a court-ordered conservatorship again? And more importantly—could you?

What Is a Conservatorship, and How Did Britney Get Trapped in One?

A conservatorship is a legal mechanism that allows a court to appoint someone to manage the personal and/or financial affairs of an individual deemed incapable of doing so themselves. In theory, it’s a tool for protection. In practice, it can be a civil liberties cage.

After a very public mental health breakdown in 2008, Britney Spears was placed under a conservatorship controlled by her father. It lasted 13 years. During that time, she released albums, performed globally, and brought in tens of millions of dollars—all while legally considered too incapacitated to make her own personal decisions.

The justification? Protect her from herself.

The irony? She worked full-time under a legal status designed for people who can’t function.

The Constitutional Problem: When Paternalism Trumps Due Process

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That includes the right to autonomy—bodily, financial, and expressive.

However, in Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993), the Supreme Court declined to apply heightened scrutiny to laws governing involuntary civil commitment. Instead, the Court upheld Kentucky’s statutory framework under rational basis review, holding that such laws need only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest—even when they result in significant deprivations of liberty. That lenient standard, applied in the context of mental disability, logically extends to conservatorships, which—unlike temporary commitments—can persist for decades with limited oversight.

In Britney’s case, the court rarely reviewed the conservatorship’s scope. She was effectively voiceless in her own life. That’s not just problematic—it’s dangerous.

And the courts have historically struggled with these tensions. In Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), the Court required a “clear and convincing” standard of proof before civil commitment. Why? Because the consequences are too severe to rely on mere allegations. But in many conservatorship proceedings, particularly in state probate courts, that standard is loosely applied—if at all.

If You Think This Could Never Happen to You… Think Again.

You don’t need to be a pop icon to lose your rights.

Conservatorships are commonly imposed on:

• Elderly individuals with mild cognitive decline
• Adults with temporary psychiatric issues
• People with disabilities whose family members weaponize the system for control

There are documented cases of financial exploitation, including Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Remer, 646 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 2002), where an attorney was suspended from the practice of law for self-dealing in his role as a conservator. In In re Conservatorship of Wendland, 28 P.3d 151 (Cal. 2001), the California Supreme Court wrestled with whether a conservator could remove life support from a disabled adult who wasn’t terminally ill. Yes, that almost happened.

The message is clear: conservatorship law isn’t always about protection. Sometimes it’s about power.

What the Law Gets Wrong — and What Needs to Change

One of the most terrifying aspects of Britney’s case was how routine it became. Judges approved extensions. Evaluators rubber-stamped renewals. And her father, who stood to profit, remained in control.

This isn’t just a Britney problem—it’s a systemic one.

Many states still:

• Fail to require periodic independent evaluations
• Lack a “least restrictive alternative” test
• Provide little access for conservatees to challenge their status

Some reforms are underway, especially in California. But federal courts have done little to create consistent due process protections nationwide. This is because the United States Supreme Court applies the least restrictive test for state conservatorship laws, rather than some form of heightened scrutiny. The fragmented patchwork leaves millions vulnerable.

Conclusion: Britney’s Mic Wasn’t the Only Thing Silenced

Let’s return to the dress. The cigarette. The erratic behavior.

Does that justify stripping someone of their freedom?

No one disputes that Britney Spears has had mental health struggles. So have millions of Americans. The law should protect the vulnerable—but not at the expense of their dignity. It’s one thing to help someone manage their affairs temporarily. It’s another to build a legal cage and throw away the key.

If it can happen to Britney Spears—with wealth, fame, and fan support—then it can happen to your mother, your child… or you.

Conservatorship reform isn’t just about the courts. It’s about constitutional values: liberty, autonomy, and the right to live a flawed, imperfect, and independent life. As a constitutional lawyer, I’ve seen firsthand how easy it is for protective legal mechanisms to morph into instruments of control. Conservatorship law needs reform—and accountability.

Image Credit: Drew de F Fawkes via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. Image has been modified.