Repository Home > Law Review > Vol. 10 > Iss. 2 (2023)

An Imperfect Solution: The Due Process Case for Providing Court-Appointed Interpreters for Pro Se Plaintiffs

Abdullah Z. Khalil, Texas A&M University School of Law (Student)Follow

Document Type

Arguendo (Online)

Abstract

A federal law, the Court Interpreters Act, provides litigants with complimentary access to a qualified or professionally certified interpreter in actions instituted by the United States. The majority of pro se civil litigation in federal courts is initiated by the United States, and thus, those pro se litigants who speak little-to-no English need not pay for access to an exceptional interpreter. Indeed, federal courts offer interpreters proficient in a multitude of languages, and the courts work hard to ensure adequate interpretation in proceedings brought by the United States.

However, those limited-English-proficient pro se plaintiffs initiating their own lawsuits face a steep climb to vindicate their private rights against nongovernmental defendants. Beyond the inherent challenges associated with filing and proceeding absent legal counsel, these litigants further proceed absent the language skills necessary to understand the meaning and effect of a court’s hearings. The Court Interpreters Act effectively ignores this class of litigants. While federal district judges have the power to appoint interpreters for civil litigants on a discretionary basis, district judges do not always exercise this power. Anything short of a mandate to provide interpretation services to the small group of non-English-speaking pro se plaintiffs overlooked by the Court Interpreters Act risks continued denial of their right of meaningful access to the courts.

In this Comment, I argue that under both common sense and the procedural due process Mathews factors, language access is a material component of a litigant’s right to be heard. Our judicial system works hard to accommodate pro se litigants while also denying those pro se litigants who lack adequate English skills access to an interpreter. To remedy this flagrant unfairness, I propose that the Administrative Office of the United States Court should amend its Policy Guidance so that pro se plaintiffs pleading a colorable cause of action receive interpretation services as needed.

DOI

10.37419/LR.V10.Arg.5

First Page

Last Page

Recommended Citation

Abdullah Z. Khalil, An Imperfect Solution: The Due Process Case for Providing Court-Appointed Interpreters for Pro Se Plaintiffs, 10 Tex. A&M L. Rev. Arguendo 68 (2023).
Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V10.Arg.5