Working Papers
Judicial Language Policy in the United States and
Choice of Language: A Review of Federal Case Law
R. Jeffrey Blair
jeffreyb@dpc.aichi-gakuin.ac.jp
Aichi Gakuin Junior College, Nagoya, Japan
The nations of the world can be divided into three catagories on the basis of their language policies: (a) nations with a single official language, (b) those with multiple official languages, and (c) nations with no official language. Though the dominant language in the United States is clearly English, the nation has no official language. Some state, territorial , and local governments within the U.S., however, have established English as their own official language, and some have, on occasion, sought to restrict residents' freedom to use their personal language of choice. In more recent years, as members of the public have become increasingly aware of and sensitive to their legal rights, advocates of language rights for minority language discourse communities have appealed to the judicial branch of the federal government to make government more responsive to the needs of non-English speakers. The polarization between English Plus and English Only has created a fierce political debate, that has made some kind of resolution increasingly urgent. In the absence of any clear statutory or regulatory policy from the other two branches of government , the burden of finding and interpreting a national language policy has fallen on the federal courts , with mixed results.
This paper examines six federal cases, both criminal and civil, dealing with these language issues. It shows, on the one hand , how the federal courts have managed to preserve America's traditional, unwritten policy of laissez-faire and, on the other, why the courts have so far been unwilling to mandate a greater use of minority languages in the provision of government services. The discussion focuses on de jure national language policy--(a) the constitutional , statutory, and regulatory laws that define federal policy and (b) the judicial decisions that interpret it--and on the judicial process that produces these interpretations.
Outline
Purpose of the Study
To explore the legal status of languages in the United States
Language policy itself
Judicial process whereby it has been formulated
Comments
Invite updates
Comments about situation in other countries
Other studies about the legal status of languages
Encourage follow-up discussion via Internet
Acknowledgements
Gratitude to Charlene Sato (1951-1996)
Language policy of the United States
No federally established official languages
Final interpretation in the courts
"[T]he national language of the United States is English."
(Soberal-Perez v. Schweiker, 1982, 1175)
Method
Straight forward approach
Reading federal judicial decisions
- United States Reports (U.S.)
- Federal Reporter (F.2d and F.3d)
- Federal Supplement (F. Supp.)
Try to fathom the decisions and their rationale
Mispronunciation of names
Types of Cases
Restrictive language laws
Burden of communication for government services
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1922)
Nebraska enacted (1919) a criminal law directed against
- (a) Teaching languages other than English
- (b) Use of non-English languages for school instruction
To students who had not yet passed grade 8
Penalty $25-$100 fine and/or 30 days in jail
Findings of Fact
Robert Meyer, a teacher of German
At Zion Parochial School
Ten-year-old Raymond Papart
How to read Bible stories in German
Robert Meyer was tried and convicted
Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed conviction
Appealed to US Supreme Court
Rights to Be Balanced
Rights of school children to acquire knowledge
Rights of parents to guide the children's education
Criminal case, neither parents nor children charged
Rights of the State to protect citizens from harm
Language knowledge found not to be harmful
Right to choose and pursue legitimate profession affirmed
Moot issues
Rights of its citizens to use choice of language
Restrictions on language of education (section b)
Restrictions on public school curriculum
Outcome
Meyer's conviction was reversed
Restrictive language law partially voided (section a)
Ruling with broad consequences (language rights) avoided
Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500 (1925)
Philippines, then a territory of the U.S.
Official languages were English and Spanish
Local languages also used
Enacted (1921) a criminal law directed against
Keeping account books in other languages
Penalty 10 thousand pesos fine and/or 2 years in jail
12 thousand Chinese merchants
Accounted for 60% business activity
Findings of Fact
Yu Cong Eng, a lumber merchant, kept his books in Chinese
Arrested and account books seized
Before trial filed civil suit together with Co Liam
Issues Discussed
No precise definition of "account books"
- Included duplicate sets?
- Included non-tax related books?
Philippine Supreme Court decided "no" to both questions
No judicial powers to rewrite laws
Only legislative bodies can make laws
Outcome
Statute was overly broad and thus defective
Restrictive language law voided
Ruling with broad consequences (language rights) avoided
Chinese merchants could continue to do business
and keep books in Chinese
Economic disruption avoided
Asian American Business Group v. Pomona,
716 F.Supp. 1328 (1989)
Pomona, California enacted an ordinance requiring
commercial signs in "foreign" alphabets
to devote half the sign area to Roman letters
and display addresses in Arabic numerals
Asian American Business Group filed suit
No arrests or fines
Hypothetical arguments
Issues Discussed
Choice of language protected by Freedom of Speech
Restrictive language laws require strict scrutiny
- compelling state interest
- narrowly taylored
Restriction needed to facilitate emergency reporting?
- Information not required on English signs
- Addresses sufficient to locate building
- Half sign requirement excessive
Outcome
Restrictive language law voided
Established high level of scrutiny for restrictive lang. laws
Acknowledged potential for illegal discrimination
Carmona v. Sheffield, 325 F. Supp. 1341,
aff'd, 475 F.2d 738 (1971/1973)
Findings of Fact
Serafia Carmona & Manuel Venegas denied unemployment
benefits in San Jose (Cal. Dept. of Human Resources)
U.S. is an English-speaking country (dominant language)
English required for naturalization (8 USC 1412(1))
Issues Discussed
Minority languages to be accomodated (all or none)
Burden of accomodation to the government (overwhelming)
Failure to state a claim (no problem, no solution)
Special consideration (public policy, legislature)
Issues distorted
Exaggerated burden to government
- Number of languages that need accomodation
- Agencies that would need to make language accomodations
Ignored burden to (non-English speaking) individuals
Ignored burden to the government of inefficient communication
and miscommunication
Soberal-Perez, 549 F. Supp. 1164,
aff'd, 717 F.2d 36 (1982/1983)
Findings of Fact
Anibal Soberal-Perez's application was turned down
for disability and social security benefits
Notice of right to reconsideration in English (denial affirmed)
Notice of right to a hearing before an admin. law judge
with legal representation
Visited Brooklyn SSA office w/friend/transl'r and documents
Clerk asked questions
Neither he nor his friend understood
Clerk filled out a form that requested a hearing, but waived
S-P's rights to appear & submit further evidence
Clerk indicated he should sign the form
Soberal-Perez complied w/out understanding consequences
More rejections and more notices, all in English, followed.
Benito Cortez and Miguel Carballo denied disability benefits
Alcedo De La Cruz overpayment reclaimed
Issues Discussed
Civil Rights Act '64 (42 USC 2000d) prohibits discrimination
Basis of national origin (not language per se)
Programs receiving Federal funds
(not including federal agencies)
Equal protection analysis under the Fifth Amendment
Strict scrutiny (compelling justification)
(a)Disadvantage of some suspect class
- Ethnic groups and national origin
- Intention to discriminate
(b)Impinges upon a fundamental right
Normal scrutiny (benefits and other noncontractual claims)
Rationally calculated
Further some legitimate purpose
(cost in time and money)
Presumption of validity
"national language of the United States is English"
Outcome
Suit dismissed, but ...
Remanded to Sec. Heckler of Health and Human Services
- Full evidentiary hearings
- Cortez and Carballo subsequently awarded benefits
- Soberal-Perez lost on the merits
Yniguez v. Mofford, 730 F. Supp. 309 (1990)
Yniguez v. Ariz., 939 F.2d 727 (1991) & 975 F.2d 646 (1992)
Yniguez v. Arizonans for Off'l English, 42 F.3d 1217 (1994)
Arizona passed (1988) an English-only const'l amendment
Government to "act in English and in no other language"
Four exceptions:
(a) foreign language teaching,
(b) public health and safety,
(c) criminal rights,
(d) as required by federal law
Citizens could bring suit to force compliance
Maria-Kelly Yniguez, a government claims manager,
stopped using Spanish and filed suit
State Sen. Jaime Gutierrez cont'd using Spanish and joined
Findings of Fact
Gov't officials said they would allow Yniguez to use Spanish
Senator Gutierrez was beyond control of exec. branch
Issues Discussed
Broad language inhibited protected speech of third parties
(legislators/constituents and marriage ceremonies)
Executive could not ignore (legislative/public) intent
All non-Eng. words & phrases prohibited (Latin on diplomas)
Choice of language protected by Freedom of Speech
(No disruption of government)
Message of exclusion to minority language groups
perhaps even illegal discrimination by proxy
Multilingual services-No duty to provide, no right to prohibit
No additional costs or burdens
Effective and efficient government
Non-English speakers' rights to information and ideas
Outcome
Rights of citizens to use choice of language
No special accomodation for language minorities
Voided on technical grounds by Supreme Court
Ruling with broad consequences (language rights) avoided
Working Papers
http://www.aichi-gakuin.ac.jp/~jeffreyb/research