What the Next Administration Should Do to Improve Language Access in the Courts
from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
by Laura Abel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
prepared for Language Access in the Courts panel at NLADA Annual Conference November 2007
Statement of the Problem
Every day, millions of Americans suffer from injustice because so few courts provide interpreters. For too many people, their "day in court" means being unable to understand or make themselves understood. The result can be the loss of custody of their children, of a claim for back wages, of protection from a violent spouse, or of an apartment or a home. Serious constitutional problems can arise when people with limited fluency in English must proceed in court without an interpreter. [1] The federal government does not provide interpreters in civil cases, except for individuals being sued by the federal government. [2] And although the states are required by federal law to provide interpreters in all types of civil proceedings, [3] they routinely ignore the law. Some states fail to provide interpreters except in a few categories of cases, and many fail to require any proof that the interpreters they do provide are competent. [4] Even in criminal matters, for which state judiciaries do provide interpreters, the quality is often poor.
Recommendations
I. First 100 Days
Expand enforcement of states' obligations to provide interpreters. Increase the resources available to the Coordination and Review Section ("COR") of the Department of Justice, which is responsible for enforcing the Title VI obligations of federally funded state entities, including court systems. COR should also make clear to the states that their language access obligations extend beyond the courtroom, to include, for example, litigants' interaction with court clerks and probation offices.
II. First Year
Pass the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act, S. 702. Support this bill, to provide funding and technical support to state court interpreter programs.
III. First Term
Pass a law to provide interpreters in all federal court civil cases. It is not enough to provide interpreters only in cases brought by the federal government. [5] The Federal Court Interpreters Act should be expanded to require the provision of interpreters in all civil cases, at no cost to the litigant, so all Americans are able to enforce their rights in federal court.
Endnotes
1. See, e.g., Gardiana v. Small Claims Court, 59 Cal. App. 3d 412 (1976) (due process right to interpreter in small claims cases); In re Doe, 99 Hawai'i 522 (2002) (due process right to interpreter in child welfare cases); Figueroa v. Doherty, 303 Ill.App.3d 46, 50 (Ill. App. 1999) (due process right to interpreter in employment case); Sabuda v. Kim, 2006 WL 2382461 (Mich. App. Aug. 17, 2006) (due process right to interpreter to seek restraining order); Daoud v. Mohammad, 952 A.2d 1091 (N.J. Super. 2008) (due process right to interpreter in landlord-tenant dispute); Caballero v. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of White Pine, 167 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2007) (due process right to interpreter in small claims case); Yellen v. Baez, 676 N.Y.S.2d 724, 727 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1997) (due process right to interpreter in landlord-tenant dispute).
2. 28 U.S.C. § 1827 (limiting scope of federal court interpreter program to "judicial proceedings instituted by the United States").
3. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2008); Exec. Order No. 13,166, 65 Fed. Reg. 50121 (Aug. 16, 2000); Dept. of Justice Policy Guidance Document, 67 Fed. Reg. 41455, 41457 (June 18, 2002).
4. See Laura K. Abel & Alice Ho, Language Access in Civil State Court Proceedings: A Preliminary Report, Proteus, The Newsletter of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (summer 2008); California Commission on Access to Justice, Language Barriers to Justice in California (2005).
5. 28 U.S.C. § 1827.
