Accommodating Linguistic Difference: Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Language Rights in the United States

Abstract

In Henzdndez v. New York,' the Supreme Court held that prosecutors may strike potential jurors from the venire on the basis of their ability to speak a language other than English. Courts have consistently treated biand multilingualism as reasonable grounds for excluding individuals from participation in an institution long considered to be a fundamental site of civic engagement. Courts seem to fear that bilingual jurors will disrupt jury deliberations that are carefully cabined by legal procedures, which include court-sponsored translations of foreign-language testimony. The Henzdndez Court, despite its deference to the prosecutors, complicated the issue in its plurality opinion by highlighting the centrality of language to individual personality and the interpretation of meaning.