I. English as the Official Language and English-Only Laws

A. Does the fact that English is California's official language prevent a local agency from providing language access services?

      While article III, section 6 of California's Constitution declares English to be the state's official language--and while local jurisdictions may have similar official language pronouncements in their charters or ordinances-- local agencies are still permitted to take steps to ensure that LEP residents have full access to public benefits, services, and programs.

      According to the California Constitution, “English is the official language of the state of This official language provision requires the Legislature to “take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the State of California is preserved and The provision also allows residents to sue the state to enforce its requirements.

      This provision, however, does not limit the power of local agencies to provide language access services on their own accord.  Article III section 6 leaves it to the legislature to enforce its provisions, and the Legislature has not enacted any laws to limit public agencies' authority to offer language access services.  The two courts to have considered the issue concluded that this provision does not prohibit agencies from offering language access services. California's official English law is “primarily a symbolic statement concerning the importance of preserving, protecting, and strengthening the English

      Thus, in the absence of implementing legislation, California's official English law does not prevent agencies from choosing to provide access to services and programs for LEP speakers, or from complying with federal or state laws that mandate language access.

B. Can a local ordinance or charter provision require public business to be conducted only in English?

      English-only laws--laws that prohibit the use of other languages in conducting public agency business--have been held to violate the First Amendment. Prohibiting public officials or employees from choosing to communicate in languages other than English violates the U.S. Constitution for two reasons.

       • It “deprives limited- and non-English-speaking persons of access to information about the government when multilingual access may be available and may be necessary to ensure fair and effective delivery of governmental services to non-English-speaking
       • It deprives “elected officials and public employees of the ability to communicate with their constituents and with the
      As discussed in the sections that follow, federal or state law often mandates language access.  Such laws supersede local ordinances that attempt to prohibit the provision of public services in languages other than English.

C. If banning the use of other languages is unconstitutional, does this mean that LEP residents have a constitutional right to language access?

      Courts have consistently rejected the notion that there is a constitutional right to language access. Neither the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires municipalities to provide services in languages other than English. Accordingly, the willingness to translate some information or to provide interpreters at some meetings cannot create an obligation to translate and interpret in every instance. A public agency's decision whether or how often to provide language access services will be upheld so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.

      Intentionally denying access to public services or programs to those who speak a language other than English, however, can be a form of unlawful discrimination. Everyone has the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A policy that intentionally singles out one language group by denying that group language access services which other groups receive could be challenged for violating these principles. Alternatively, if an agency knows that it has an obligation to provide language access services under a federal or state statue and intentionally denies those services to a particular group, the agency's acts could be evidence of intentional and unlawful discrimination.