‘English-Only’ Law Debated In Legalese Supreme Court Seems Ready To Reinstate Arizona Initiative

The Supreme Court’s long-awaited argument over whether the voters can force the government to use “English only” turned instead into an hourlong debate Wednesday in a language familiar to lawyers only.

The justices and the opposing attorneys argued over whether anyone in the case had “standing” to be heard in court. They discussed whether the case had become “moot” years ago when the original plaintiff quit her state job. And they argued over whether any court now had “jurisdiction” to rule on the constitutional issue.

In the end, three conclusions seemed apparent.

First, the justices will not issue an opinion on the far-reaching question of whether “English only” laws violate the First Amendment rights of Spanish-speaking public employees.

Second, the court will toss out on procedural grounds a liberal decision of the U.S. appeals court that struck down a 1988 Arizona “English-only” initiative. The appeals court should not have ruled on the matter, the justices seemed to agree.

Third, and perhaps most important, the justices may reinstate the Arizona initiative, the nation’s strictest “English only” measure.

If so, it will likely reinvigorate the heated debate over the extent to which the government should or should not accommodate people who do not speak English. It also will mean still more litigation.

Eighteen states have laws on the books that say English is its “official language.” These measures have been seen as mostly symbolic, since they merely require documents be printed in English.

In 1988, an Arizona citizens group led by a retired federal immigration agent put on the state ballot a measure that went further. It said English must be not only the state’s official language but the “language of the ballot, the public schools and all government functions and actions.” It won a narrow approval with 50.5 percent of the vote.

It was immediately challenged in federal court in a lawsuit filed by a Latino state employee who handled medical malpractice claims. The plaintiff, Maria-Kelley Yniquez, said she often had to speak Spanish and write settlement orders in Spanish for residents who did not speak English.