Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Language Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission briefing hears experts warn rescinding federal language‑access guidance could reduce services for millions
Summary
At a March 21 public briefing, academics, legal experts, state officials, health‑care providers, advocates and people with limited English proficiency told the commission that recent executive‑branch policy changes and funding constraints risk undermining language access to federally‑funded programs; witnesses urged stronger guidance, enforcement and federal support.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights convened a public briefing on March 21, 2025 titled "Language access for individuals with limited English proficiency" and heard four panels of testimony from researchers, legal experts, state officials, health‑care providers, community advocates and people directly affected by language barriers.
The commission and witnesses framed the issue around a few consistent points: about 26 million people in the United States are classified as limited English proficient (LEP), language barriers increase administrative burdens and health‑care risks, and an executive order issued March 1 that rescinded prior federal language‑assistance guidance (EO 13166) gives agency leaders greater discretion and may reduce federally coordinated language support.
Key testimony and findings
- Scale and legal landscape: Lead Commissioner Glenn Magpintai and several witnesses cited ACS/Census‑based estimates that roughly 26 million people (about 8% of the population) face LEP challenges. Witnesses discussed relevant legal authorities including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act’s minority‑language requirements, and section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which governs language access in health care.
- Legal interpretations: Dan Morinoff and others argued that statutory language in many civil‑rights laws does not explicitly list "language" as a protected class; they cautioned that disparate‑impact arguments face significant procedural and evidentiary hurdles in current Supreme Court doctrine. Other witnesses (Bill Rivers, John Tanner, Jacob Hofstetter) noted that case law and agency guidance (previously shaped by EO 13166) had been used operationally to improve access and that rescinding that guidance could have downstream effects on recipients of federal funds.
- Programmatic practice and examples: State and provider witnesses described practical approaches: Georgia DHS has a centralized language‑access plan, vendor contracts and a bilingual proficiency test; health systems (e.g., DHR Health, Mount Sinai) described multi‑tier models combining in‑house bilingual staff, third‑party phone/video interpreting and community vetting of translations. Panelists warned against relying solely on machine translation without human review in medical and legal contexts.
- Community and individual impacts: Community advocates and impacted individuals gave concrete examples: cancelled disability hearings because staff could not secure interpreters due to funding/contract issues; children routinely used as interpreters in family and medical settings; the testimony of Jerry Rayburn described a family hospitalization and subsequent amputations where lack of reliable interpretation contributed to delayed diagnosis and trauma.
Recommendations heard
Witnesses offered a set of recurring recommendations: preserve or reissue clear federal guidance that operationalizes language‑access obligations for agencies and funding recipients; consider legislative codification of protections where appropriate (especially for health care); increase funding and technical assistance for state and local programs; require human review of machine translations for medical or legal materials; expand training and certification for interpreters; and improve enforcement and timeliness of administrative complaint resolution.
Public record and next steps
Chair Garza reminded attendees that written comments will remain part of the public record through April 21, 2025. Commissioners indicated the briefing will inform the commission’s investigation and any report or recommendations to the attorney general, Congress, and federal agencies.
Selected quotes
"Language access is essential to ensuring that communications between patients and their health care team are clear and understood," said Adam Carbolito of APCHO. Jacob Hofstetter of the Migration Policy Institute noted that "there were over 26,000,000 limited English proficient individuals in the U.S. as of 2022." Chair Garza and witnesses repeatedly warned that rescinding EO 13166 could create uncertainty for agencies and recipients and urged clear guidance.
Ending: The commission adjourned the briefing at 03:44 PM ET and will accept supplemental written input to inform its ongoing study and recommendations.
