•  
  •  
 
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract

English is the language of the court, but when it intends to serve a multilingual public, there must be a strong commitment to uphold the rights of limited English proficient (LEP) individuals. LEP individuals, particularly those that speak rare languages, are disadvantaged by various issues impacting interpreters and the courts. When only the interpreter’s words are reflected in the courtroom and the transcript, it is essential that the court ensures the accessibility of qualified interpretation, as any omission or misinterpretation can hinder access to justice. We must protect the interests of LEP individuals trying to navigate the court system, and we can do so by improving interpreter support. This comment addresses solutions that would allow Texas to combat the pressing court interpreter shortage and better ensure accurate interpretation, thereby assuring that LEP individuals have access to more timely, reliable interpretation in courts throughout the state. At the heart of equity for LEP individuals lies the interpreter. The LEP community has much to gain with a qualified interpreter, but just as much, if not more, to lose with an unqualified interpreter. LEP individuals deserve the chance to understand proceedings in their language, interpreters are just as worthy of fair treatment, and both are deserving of patience and understanding. Rigorous training and measures for accountability, as well as cognizance and consideration, will ensure that a qualified, clearheaded professional can channel understanding between LEP individuals and the courts they come before. Readers, please note that some changes have occurred since the writing of this comment. Executive Order 14224, issued in March 2025, rescinds both Executive Order 13166 and prior LEP guidance. This comment used prior LEP guidance as a baseline for some of its recommendations. Though rescinded, prior LEP guidance remains relevant to the discussion. Additionally, language access is still legally required. The comment briefly addresses such changes in the conclusion.

Last Page

518

First Page

471

Volume Number

28

Issue Number

3

Publisher

St. Mary's University School of Law

Editor

Priscilla Okolie

ISSN

1537-405X

Share

COinS