English as the Official Language: Ándale, caballero!

The Executive Order and Its Provisions
The Executive Order, titled "Designating English as the Official Language of the United States", cites that "from the founding of our Republic, English has been used as our national language" and that "a nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society". The order rescinds Executive Order 13166 from August 2000, which required federal agencies to provide language assistance to non-English speakers.

Despite this rescission, the order explicitly states that agencies are "not required to amend, remove, or otherwise stop production of documents, products, or other services prepared or offered in languages other than English". Agency heads retain discretion to determine how to fulfill their missions and provide government services efficiently to the American people.

Legal Implications for Non-English Speakers
The United States has established case law requiring language assistance in certain contexts, particularly in criminal proceedings. The landmark case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that law enforcement must advise suspects of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation. Subsequent court decisions have affirmed that these rights must be communicated in a language the suspect can understand.

In United States v. Garibay (1998), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that law enforcement officers must verify suspects understand English well enough to "knowingly and intelligently" waive their Miranda rights. This created the precedent that if non-native English speakers cannot understand their rights in English, they must be communicated in the suspect's native language.

Later, in United States v. Botello Rosales (2013), the Ninth Circuit Court heard a case where a Spanish-speaking respondent argued he had not been properly advised of his rights because the officer explained them in nearly incomprehensible Spanish. The Court decided that foreign-language readings of the Miranda warnings must "reasonably convey" the meaning of the rights.

These legal precedents remain in effect despite the Executive Order, continuing to require adequate translation of Miranda warnings for non-English speakers.

Linguistic Issues with Spanish Miranda Warnings
Recent research on Spanish-language Miranda warnings in Nevada raises concerns about translation quality and comprehensibility. As documented by Keaton (2020), these translations often contain significant errors that could prevent suspects from understanding their constitutional rights.

The study identified several common problems:
1. Inconsistent Warning Text: Of nine law enforcement agencies initially surveyed, no two had identical English Miranda warnings, and this variation carried over to Spanish translations. Some officers admitted to doing ad-hoc interpretations, with one stating he felt "more than confident" in his ability to accurately interpret the warnings as a heritage Spanish speaker.

2. Translation Inadequacies: Spanish Miranda warnings frequently contained errors that changed meaning. For example, some agencies translated "can and will" as puede see, which in Spanish only equates to "can" not "will". Another agency translated "remain silent" as mantenerse callado (keep quiet), which does not accurately convey the legal right to silence.

3. Complex Grammar: Many warnings contained unnecessarily complex grammar with multiple levels of embedding. It was reported that an agency's fourth warning had "four subordinate clauses spread across five levels of embedding", which made comprehension difficult even for native Spanish speakers.

4. Formal Legal Lexicon: Translations often used low-frequency or legalistic terms where simpler equivalents were available. For instance, "afford" was translated using complex phrases rather than straightforward translations, a barrier for non-university educated Spanish speakers.

5. Missing Subject Pronouns: Some translations omitted the second-person singular pronoun usted (you), which produced ambiguity about whether the rights actually applied to the listener or someone else.

These issues raise legitimate concerns about whether Spanish-speaking suspects can truly understand their constitutional rights as presented.

Miranda Rights in Court Proceedings
Recent court cases have addressed issues with Spanish Miranda warnings. In Arriagaguadron v. State of Texas (2025), the appellant challenged his conviction partly on grounds that the Spanish translation of his Miranda rights was inadequate. The translation used empleado in connection with the right to appointed counsel, which defense counsel argued did not adequately convey that an attorney would be provided at no cost.

Justice Goldstein's concurring opinion highlighted the problem: "If you did not grow up with these rights, are not familiar with our criminal justice system, or may not understand those rights due to age, language, or cognitive deficits, how do we ensure that those rights are voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived"?

The American Bar Association (ABA) recognized this issue in 2016, approving Resolution 110 urging jurisdictions to develop Miranda warnings for Spanish-speaking persons. In 2017, the ABA House of Delegates adopted Resolution 112C urging authorities to develop translations of Miranda warnings "in as many languages and dialects as necessary to accurately and fully inform individuals of their Miranda rights".

The Linguistic Society of America's Response
The Linguistic Society of America (LSA) has strongly opposed the Executive Order, publishing a statement in March 2025 outlining four reasons why English should not be the official language of the United States:

1. Historical Multilingualism: The LSA notes that "one out of five U.S. residents in 2019 reported having a language background other than English" and this diversity is not new. By 1664, Manhattan Island was home to speakers of 18 different immigrant languages and several Native American languages.

2. False Unity Through Monolingualism: The LSA argues that "the Executive Order promotes a false, exclusionary belief that a nation must have one, official language in order to be unified" when in fact "citizens of democracies inevitably have different linguistic ways of navigating their lives".

3. Ineffective for Integration: The statement challenges the assertion that English-only policies improve economic prospects or communication for immigrants, noting that most already place high value on learning English, with the children of immigrants universally learning English through schools and communities.

4. Multilingualism Makes Nations Stronger: The LSA cites research showing the positive effects of bi- and multilingualism on cognition, aging, and public health, illustrating that "a nation and its citizens are in fact strengthened by speaking many languages".

Implications for Translation Services
For translation companies like ours, the Executive Order is a gray area. While it rescinds the Clinton-era mandate requiring language assistance, it explicitly allows federal agencies to continue offering services in languages other than English at their discretion.

The continuing case law related to Miranda rights means there remains a legal obligation for law enforcement to provide accurate translations for non-English speakers during custodial interrogation. However, the quality issues identified in the Spanish Miranda warnings suggest a need for professional translation services rather than relying on bilingual officers for on-the-spot interpretations.

Our experience with Pacific Island languages suggests similar issues likely exist for other language communities, particularly those with fewer speakers in the United States. The translation challenges identified in Spanish, an official language of the state of New Mexico and the territory of Puerto Rico, and the second most commonly spoken language in the US with over 41 million speakers, are potentially magnified for smaller language communities with fewer resources such as the Marshallese, Chuukese, CHamorro, American Samoans, etc.

Moving Forward
The designation of English as the official language of the United States raises questions about access to justice for non-English speakers. While the Executive Order allows continued multilingual services at agency discretion, it removes the federal mandate requiring them.

The experiences of Spanish-speaking defendants suggest current translation practices often fall short of the legal standard to "reasonably convey" constitutional rights. As language professionals working with Pacific Islander communities, we see the need for standardized, linguistically sound translations of legal rights in multiple languages, including Palauan, Carolinian, Yapese, Pohnpeian, Kosraean and Hawaiian, an official language of the state of Hawaiʻi.

The tension between an English-only policy and the constitutional requirement to ensure all people understand their rights makes this an evolving area of law and policy. As this situation develops, professional translation services will become even more essential to mediate between policy mandates and constitutional rights for linguistic minorities.