High Court’s ‘English Only’ Case Boils Down to Legalese

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 only to lawyers.

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 may not issue an opinion on the far-reaching question of whether “English only” laws violate the 1st Amendment rights of Spanish-speaking public employees.

Second, the high court is likely to 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, the action would 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 would mean still more litigation.

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

In 1988, an Arizona citizens group led by a retired federal immigration agent put a measure that went further on the state ballot. It said English must not only be the state’s official language but the “language of the ballot, the public schools and all government functions and actions.” It won narrow approval with 50.5% 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 had to often speak Spanish and write settlement orders in Spanish for residents who did not speak English.

While the initiative allowed the use of other languages in medical or police emergencies, it did not appear to allow the use of Spanish in routine dealings with Spanish-speaking residents.

Nonetheless, the state attorney general said he would not enforce the measure against employees such as Yniquez who were doing the day-to-day business of state government.

Rather than simply dismiss the suit as the state’s lawyers suggested, a federal judge in Phoenix declared the entire initiative “void and invalid on its face [because it is] in violation of the 1st Amendment.”

State officials chose not to appeal. However, the citizens group that sponsored the initiative, Arizonans for Official English, did appeal.

In the meantime, Yniquez quit her job--a development that could have rendered the case moot. But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said she still had standing because Yniquez could have been awarded damages. A three-judge panel of the court then agreed, in 1992, that the measure was unconstitutional and the full appeals court affirmed that conclusion on a 6-5 vote last year.

The Supreme Court, more inclined to uphold state initiatives, agreed to hear the case earlier this year. But what should it do now with the procedurally confused dispute (Arizonans for Official English vs. Arizona, 95-974)?

That question took up the entire hour Wednesday.