Supreme Court Leaves Door Open To English-Only Laws

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a federal appeals court’s decision that Arizona could not require state employees to speak only English on the job, ordering a state employee’s challenge to Arizona’s English-only constitutional amendment to be dismissed as moot because the worker resigned seven years ago.

The justices did not take a view on the merits of what was one of the more closely watched cases on the court’s docket.

Instead, they ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that because the Spanish-speaking employee had left her state job before the appeals court’s 1994 ruling, the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to consider her argument that the provision violated her First Amendment right to free speech.

The decision Monday meant the Arizona Supreme Court will now have a chance to provide an interpretation of the English-only provision, which was added to the state Constitution in a 1988 voter referendum, and to rule on whether it violates the First Amendment.

A separate lawsuit, in which several plaintiffs are challenging the provision, is before the Arizona Supreme Court and the possibility remains that the U.S. Supreme Court will review that court’s eventual ruling.

In that respect, the ruling Monday simply keeps the door open to a future Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the “official English” laws that two dozen states have enacted in the last few years.