Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mcr 1.111 Interpreters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court Hears Calls to Eliminate Interpreter Fees and Add Certification Categories
Summary
Advocates urged the Michigan Supreme Court to prohibit interpreter fees in criminal (and extend to civil) cases and to add 'provisionally certified' and 'registered' interpreter categories after panelists cited very low oral-exam passage rates that threaten language access.
The Michigan Supreme Court also took public comment on a proposed amendment to MCR 1.111 that would prohibit reimbursement for interpreter services in criminal cases, update definitions for certified and qualified foreign-language interpreters, and add a new definition for registered interpreter firms.
Kim Kramer of Michigan Legal Help told the justices that requiring defendants to pay interpreter costs creates barriers and urged the Court to extend the prohibition to civil proceedings, arguing that limited-English-proficient (LEP) litigants face life-altering consequences in civil matters if they cannot obtain language assistance. Megan Reynolds of the Michigan Poverty Law Program and the State Planning Body supported the amendment and pressed the Court to raise or remove the current 125% federal poverty threshold that limits fee waivers for interpreter services in civil cases.
Judge Silenthia Latoy Miller, speaking for the Foreign Language Review Board and as a Third Judicial Circuit judge, stressed an access-to-justice problem tied to certification testing. She reported 2024 National Center for State Courts (NCSC) oral-exam statistics given to the board—1,294 oral examinations administered, 952 in Spanish and 342 in other languages, and an overall oral-exam passage rate she described as about 6.34 percent; she said 68 candidates met or exceeded the 70% NCSC score requirement cited—and urged adding provisionally certified and registered interpreter categories while the exam and test tools are revised.
Speakers argued the Court can act to reduce barriers to language access—either by prohibiting interpreter fees in criminal and civil matters or by expanding permissible interpreter categories to maintain an adequate workforce—while still safeguarding competence through written-exam requirements, post-test feedback, and continuing evaluation of the oral exam. The hearing closed after questions from the justices about competence trade-offs and access concerns; the Court did not take immediate action.
