Amicus Curiae Brief — Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

No. 95-974

IN THE ———

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1995

ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH

and ROBERT D. PARK,

Petitioners,

v.

STATE OF ARIZONA; MARIA-KELLEY F. YNIGUEZ;

JAIME GUTIERREZ; and ARIZONANS AGAINST

CONSTITUTIONAL TAMPERING,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF OF THE WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AND

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVES CHARLES T. CANADY,

TOBY ROTH, HENRY J. HYDE, BOB LIVINGSTON,

BILL BAKER, DOUG BEREUTER, THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR..,

PETER BLUTE, SONNY BONO, ED BRYANT,

PHILIP M. CRANE, JOHN T. DOOLITTLE,

ROBERT K. DORNAN, BOB GOODLATTE, MEL HANCOCK,

MARTIN HOKE, DANA ROHRABACHER, ED ROYCE,

MATT SALMON, JIM SENSENBRENNER, JR., AND

CHARLES H. TAYLOR AS AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Richard K. Willard Daniel J. Popeo

Counsel of Record David A. Price

Bennett Evan Cooper Washington Legal Foundation

Steptoe & Johnson LLP 2009 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-0302

(202) 429-3000

Date: January 22, 1996

CASILLAS PRESS INC. — 1717 K STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 20036 — 202-223-1220

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................ ili

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE .......... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............. 4

SE 66.4.0 & be 64) kK AL OR 5

I. The Issues Presented by the Petition Are

Matters of Great National Importance

Deserving Review by this Court ........ 5

II. The Issues Presented by the Petition Are

Ready for Review by this Court ....... 10

Be ey Ree ee er i4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Carmona v. Sheffield,

475 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1973) .........

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) .....

Frontera v. Sindell,

§22 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1975) ........

Garcia v. Gloor,

618 F.2d 264 (Sth Cir. 1980),

cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1113 (1981) .....

Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.,

998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir.),

reh'g denied, 13 F.3d 296 (9th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 114 §. Ct. 2726 (1994) ....

Guadalupe Organization, Inc. v.

Tempe Elementary School District

No. 3, 587 F.2d 1022 (9th Cir. 1978) ....

Gutierrez v. Municipal Court,

838 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir.),

reh’g denied, 861 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir. 1988),

vacated, 490 U.S. 1016 (1989) ........

Page(s)

iv

Hernandez v. New York,

Se a DE: sb A « 6-068 a Cee es

Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corp.,

813 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1987) ...........

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) .......

Mistretta v. United States,

CU EE a oe

Pemberthy v. Beyer,

19 F.3d 857 (3d Cir.),

cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 439 (1994) ........

Ramirez v. Plough, Inc.,

12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 423 (Ct. App. 1992),

rev'd, 863 P.2d 167 (Cal. 1993) ..........

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors

of University of Virginia,

fF 0 re ee

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) .........

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois,

Ge Gas PD... ents hs 4b 0605 oo ces

Soberal-Perez v. Heckler,

717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1983),

cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929 (1984) .........

Stanley Industries v. W.M. Barr & Co.,

784 F. Supp. 1570 (S.D. Fla. 1992) ........

Toure v. United States,

24 F.3d 444 (2d Cir. 1994) ............. 8

United States v. Ramos Colon,

415 F. Supp. 459 (D.P.R. 1976) .......... 9

Waters v. Churchill, 114 S. Ct. 1878 (1994) ..... 9

Constitutions, Statutes, and Regulations:

mune cee .. so a ese 5

ee BUR i eed es cas 9

40 C.F.R. § 156.206(e) (1995) ............. 9

S.J. Res. 13, 100th Cong., Ist Sess. (1987) ...... 6

S.J. Res. 72, 97th Cong., Ist Sess. (1981) ....... 6

S. 175, 104th Cong., Ist Sess.

(introduced Jan. 10, 1995) ............. 6-7

S. 356, 104th Cong., Ist Sess.

(introduced Feb. 6, 1995) ............+.. 6-7

HJ. Res. 109, 104th Cong., Ist Sess.

(introduced Sept. 29, 1995)............. 6-7

H.R. 123, 104th Cong., Ist Sess.

(introduced Jan. 10, 1995) ............. 6-7

H.R. 739, 104th Cong., Ist Sess.

(introduced Jan. 31, 1995) ............. 6-7

vi

H.R. 1005, 104th Cong, Ist Sess.

(introduced Feb. 22, 1995) ............ 6-7

The English Language Amendment:

Hearing on S.J. Res. 167 Before the

Subcomm. on the Constitution of the

Senate Comm. on the Judiciary,

98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984) ............. 6

Making English the Official Language

of the United States: Hearing on

S. 356 Before the Senate Governmental

Affairs Comm. ,

104th Cong., Ist Sess. (1995) ........... 6-7

es FO RTT ee ee Ck 6

Rees. CaM. GR, TERS 2 0 ee cee sdb cee 08 6

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 1-4-117 (1995) ............ 6

Fe FF ye Fe) eee reer er er te 6

See Gee Giles OE 6 eda oc ee aes Re Oo 6

an, Ga, Ge es Wo Aah US tals ae es 6

— | FF & Brew rrr ctr ee 6

5 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 460/20

Se ED: ° yb -4 op dlncs(s 60.6 dhs oe 6 Oe 6

ee re Pee eee 6

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-13 (1995) .............. 6

vil

Ind. Code Ann. § 1-2-10-1 (Burns 1995) ........

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2.013 (Michie 1995) ......

Miss. Code Ann. § 3-3-31 (1995) ............

Mont. Code Ann. § 1-1-510 (1995) ...........

_ &- 5S) Serre rTiny ceeeeee

Ch PRMD 6 os stale c tes 6 ens aes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 145-12 (1995) ............

N.D. Cent. Code § 54-02-13 (1995) ..........

S.C. Code Ann. § 1-1-696

Fog. Sf = rcerecer cee

S.D. Codified Laws Ann.

§§ 1-27-20 to 1-27-26 (1995) ............

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-1-404 (1995) ...........

Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-2!2.1 (Michie 1995) ......

Miscellaneous:

Jim Abrams, Official Engiish Needed to Keep Nation

Together, Supporters Say, Ariz. J., Dec.

eS | A Sr re te ee eee

Vili

Andrew P. Averbach, Note, Language Classifications

and the Equal Protection Clause: When Is

Language a Pretext for Race or Ethnicity ?,

74 B.U.L. Rev. 481 (1994) ............ 11

Linda M. Baldwin, Note, Ramirez v. Plough, Inc. :

Should Manufacturers of Nonprescription Drugs

Have a Duty to Warn in Spanish?,

29 U.S.F.L. Rev. 837 (1995) ........... 12

Dennis E. Baron, The English-Only Question: An

Official Language for Americans (1990) ..... 11

Cynthia L. Brown, Note, A Challenge to the

English-Language Requirement of the Juror

Qualification Provision of New York's

Judiciary Law, 39 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 479

Ce oo 0 has be bile ee ae eal 13

Antonio J. Califa, Declaring English the Official

Language: Prejudice Spoken Here, 24 Harv.

C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 293 (1989) .......... 11

Dan Cooperider & Stephen Wiss, Employment Law:

The Limits of Deference: The Ninth Circuit

Rejects EEOC Guidelines on English-Only Rules

in the Workplace - Garcia v. Spun Steak,

25 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 119(1995) ..... 12

Kelly Cox, The Duty to Warn: Should California

Extend the Duty to Include Foreign

Language Warnings’,

1 San Diego Justice J. 517 (1993) ...... 12-13

ix

R. Geoffrey Dillard, Note, Multilingual Warning

Labels: Product Liability, "Official English,"

and Consumer Safety,

29 Ga. L. Rev. 197 (1994) ............ 12

Daniel J. Garfield, Don’t Box Me In:

The Unconstitutionality of Amendment 2

and English-Only Amendments,

89 Nw. U.L. Rev. 690 (1995) .......... 11

Cara D. Helper, Comment, Enforcing the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Guidelines on Discrimination Because of

National Origin: The Overextension of

English-Only Rules in Garcia v. Spun Steak

Co., 79 Minn. L. Rev. 391 (1994) ........ 12

Jose Roberto Juarez, Jr., The American Tradition of

Language Rights: The Forgotten Right to

Government in a "Known Tongue",

13 Law & Ineq. J. 443 (1995) ........... 11

Jeffrey D. Kirtner, Note, English-Only Rules and the

Role of Perspective in Title VII Claims,

73 Tex. L. Rev. $71 (1995) ............ 12

Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official

English Controversy (James Crawford ed. 1992) 11

Thomas H. Lee, Note, A Purposeful Approach to

Products Liability Warnings and

Non-English-Speaking Consumers,

47 Vand. L. Rev. 1107 (1994) .......... 12

Joseph Leibowicz, Comment, The Proposed English

Language Amendment: Shield or Sword?,

3 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 519 (1985) ....... 11

Valerie A. Lexion, Note, Language Minority Voting

Rights and the English Language Amendment,

14 Hastings Const. L.Q. 657 (1987) ....... ll

Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Comment, Through the Looking

Glass: Linguistic Separatism and National

Unity, 41 Emory L.J. 223 (1992) ......... 7

Andrew McGuire, Peremptory Exclusion of

Spanish-Speaking Jurors: Could Hernandez v.

New York Happen Here?,

23 N.M.L. Rev. 467 (1993) ............ 13

Linda M. Mealey, Note, English-Only Rules and

"Innocent" Empioyers: Clarifying National

Origin Discrimination and Disparate Impact

Theory Under Title VII,

74 Minn. L. Rev. 387 (1989) ........... 12

Terrence Meyerhoff, Note and Comment,

Multiculturalism and Language

Rights in Canada: Problems and

Prospects for Equality and Unity,

9 Am. U.J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 913 (1994) ..... 7

Rachel F. Moran, /rritation and Intrigue:

The Intricacies of Language Rights

and Language Policy,

85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 7990 (1991) .......... 11

xi

Note, "Official English": Federal Limits on Efforts

to Curtail Bilingual Services in the States,

100 Harv. L. Rev. 1345 (1987) .......... 11

Bill Ong Hing, Beyond the Rhetoric of Assimilation

and Cultural Pluralism: Addressing the

Tension of Separatism and Conflict in an

Immigration-Driven Multiracial Society,

ge & eR ee eee 11

Juan F. Perea, Demography and Distrust:

An Essay on American Languages, Cultural

Pluralism, and Official English,

70 Ramee. L. BBV. SEP CISSS) ww we ew eee 11

Juan F. Perea, English-Only Rules and the Right to

Speak One's Primary Language in the Workplace,

23 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 265 (1990) ........ 12

Perspectives on Official English (Karen L. Adams &

SE eee ee 11

Recent Case: Constitutional Law — Peremptory

Challenges — Third Circuit Holds that

Peremptory Challenges Based on Foreign

Language Ability do not Violate the

Equal Protection Clause — Pemberthy v. Beyer,

19 F.3d 857 (3d Cir. 1994),

108 Harv. L. Rev. 769 (1995) .......... 13

Carol Schmid, Comment, Language Rights and

the Legal Status of English-Only Laws

in the Public and Private Sector,

a0 N.C. Com. LJ. GS (1992) ... 2... eee 11

xii

Kevin Sneesby, Comment, National Separation:

Canada in Context — A Legal Perspective,

53 La. L. Rev. 1357, 1358-59 (1993) ....... 7

Andre Sole, Official English: A Socratic Dialogue/Law

and Economics Analysis, —

3S, 8S OS ee eee ae 11

Tanya J. Stanish, Comment, English-Only Rules

in the Workplace: Discrimination or

Employer Prerogative? A Comment on

Spun Steak v. Garcia, .

7 DePaul Bus. L.J. 435 (1995) .......... 12

Aileen Maria Ugalde, Comment, "No Se Habla Espafiol" :

English-Only Rules in the Workplace,

44 U. Miami L. Rev. 1209 (May 1990) ..... 12

Patrick Wallace, Note, English-Only Rules in

the Workplace: Examining the Need to Balance

the Burdens of Proof Under Disparate Impact

Analysis,

7 DePaul Bus. L.J. 223 (1994) .......... 12

David T. Wiley, Note, Whose Proof?: Deference to

EEOC Guidelines on Disparate Impact

Discrimination Analysis of "English-Only”

Rules, 29 Ga. L. Rev. 539 (1995) ........ 12

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1995

No. 95-974

ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH

and ROBERT D. PARK,

Petitioners,

v.

STATE OF ARIZONA;

MARIA-KELLEY F. YNIGUEZ; JAIME GUTIERREZ;

and ARIZONANS AGAINST

CONSTITUTIONAL TAMPERING,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF OF

THE WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION,

ET AL., AS AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is a

nonprofit law and policy center with more than 100,000

2

supporters nationwide. WLF participates in litigation and

administrative proceedings affecting the broad public

interest, and has a particular interest in opposing intrusions

by the federal government into decisions about the

operations of state governments, where those decisions are

properly reserved to the states’ citizens. In that regard,

WLF has participated as a party or amicus curiae in

numerous cases before this Court, as well as other courts

across the country. For example, in Wilson v. Voting

Rights Coalition (Sup. Ct. No. 95-673), WLF filed a brief

supporting California in its litigation over the

constitutionality of the unfunded mandates in the National

Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-1 ef

seq. WLEF also filed a brief before the lower court, sitting

en banc, in the present litigation.

United States Representatives Charles T. Canady, Toby

Roth, Henry J. Hyde, Bob Livingston, Bill Baker, Doug

Bereuter, Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Peter Blute, Sonny Bono,

Ed Bryant, Philip Crane, John T. Doolittle, Robert K.

Dornan, Bob Goodlatte, Mel Hancock, Martin Hoke, Dana

Rohrabacher, Ed Royce, Matt Salmon, Jim Sensenbrenner,

Jr., and Charles H. Taylor are Members of Congress who

oppose the ruling of the court below and who believe it

warrants review by this Court. These Members are

concerned by the decisions’s potential implications with

respect to any future legislation on "official English" by the

states and by Congress. They are also concerned by the

implications for government operations generally of the

holding that public employees have a presumptive right

under the First Amendment to determine how and whether

to comply with official directives concerning “expressive”

job functions.

3

Rep. Charles T. Canady is chairman of the

Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary

Committee.

Rep. Toby Roth is the sponsor of H.R. 739, the

Declaration of Official English Act, a bill to declare

English as the official language of the United States

Government. Many of the Members joining this brief are

among the 94 current co-sponsors of H.R. 739.

Rep. Henry J. Hyde is chairman of the House

Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Bob Livingston is chairman of the House

Appropriations Committee.

Amici believe that government policy, particularly in

a diverse society such as ours, should promote the use of

a common language. Amici further believe that it is

constitutionally permissible for voters to determine that

their government must act in that common language in

most circumstances as a means of increasing government

efficiency and furthering civic and social unity.

All parties have consented to the participation of the

amici. Consent letters from counsel have been lodged with

the Clerk of the Court.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case presents this Court with an important

opportunity to decide an issue of great and enduring

national importance: whether the government may direct

its employees to perform the government's official business

exclusively in a particular language. By the narrowest of

margins — a six-to-five vote of an en banc panel — the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit took the

extraordinary step of striking down the "Official English"

provision of the Arizona state constitution. The decision

below was based on the purported First Amendment rights

of public employees essentially to commit insubordination

while on the job; the analyses of the several majority and

dissenting opinions turn largely on the application of

decisions of this Court. Thus, only this Court can provide

definitive guidance.

The constitutional issues presented in this case have

import far beyond the borders of Arizona: Official English

provisions have been adopted by constitutional amendment

or statute in many states, and bills to enact such legislation

on the federal level are before Congress. A decision by the

Court in this case will not only eliminate uncertainty as to

the validity of Official English provisions, but also provide

important direction to lower courts as to a variety of legal

issues involving government policy on language. In light

of the extensive analysis of the legal issues by the courts

below and legal commentators, the Court should take this

opportunity to address the extent to which the U.S.

Constitution constrains government action to preserve

English as the nation’s common and official language.

5

ARGUMENT

I. The Issues Presented by the Petition Are Matters of

Great National Importance Deserving Review by

this Court.

This Court should grant a writ of certiorari and review

the decision below of the Ninth Circuit because the case

squarely presents an issue of great national significance:

may the people direct their government to conduct its

official business only in the people’s common language.

Regardless of one’s position on the merits of that question,

it is an issue that has been closely scrutinized, hotly

debated, and frequently raised, and one that deserves this

Court's review at this time and in this case.

The decision below cries out for review. By a six-to-

five vote of an en banc panel, the Ninth Circuit held

Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution to be invalid

under the U.S. Constitution. That constitutional provision

had been adopted by a vote of the people of Arizona in

1988. Invalidation of a state law — particularly a state

constitutional provision, and even more so one adopted by

popular vote — is an extremely serious step that should be

taken only in unusual cases after the most stringent review.

Indeed, such a decision of an inferior federal court would

have fallen within this Court's mandatory appellate

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) (1982) prior to the

1988 amendment of that statute. The gravity of the Ninth

Circuit's invalidation of a state constitutional provision by

a closely divided vote now justifies this Court’s review by

way of its discretionary jurisdiction.

The Arizona "Official English” constitutional provision

at issue in this case is not a unique political phenomenon,

6

and definitive resolution of the central issues may eliminate

uncertainty as to constitutional constraints and obviate

further costly litigation. Several states have adopted

similar constitutional provisions;' many more have enacted

legislation to the same effect;’ and Official English bills

and ballot propositions have been advanced in many others.

In addition, Congress has considered Official English

constitutional amendments on at least three occasions in

recent years.’ Indeed, at this time, Congress is considering

several bills that would declare English the official

language of the United States and require functions of the

federal government to be performed exclusively in English

in most or all circumstances.‘ Many of these legislative

' See Ala. Const. amend. 509; Cal. Const. art. III, § 6; Colo.

Const. art. Il, § 30a; Fla. Const. ; Neb.

see also Haw. Const. art. XV, § 4 (making English and Hawaiian

official languages).

>“ See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 1-4-117 (1995); 1986 Ga. Laws 529;

5 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 460/20 (Michie 1995); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-

13 (1995); Ind. Code Ann. § 1-2-10-1 (Burns 1995); Ky. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 2.013 (Michie 1995); Miss. Code Ann. § 3-3-31 (1995); Mont.

Code Ann. § 1-1-510 (1995); 1995 N.H. Laws 157; N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 145-12 (1995); N.D. Cent. Code § 54-02-13 (1995); S.C. Code Ann.

§ 1-1-696 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1993); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§ |-

27-20 to 1-27-26 (1995); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-1-404 (1995); Va. Code

Ann. § 22.1-212.1 (Michie 1995).

> See S.J. Res. 72, 97th Cong., Ist Sess. (1981); The English

Language Amendment: Hearing on S.J. Res. 167 Before the Subcomm.

on the Constitution of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th Cong.,

2d Sess. (1984); S.J. Res. 13, 100th Cong., Ist Sess. (1987).

* See Making English the Official Language of the United

States: Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs Comm., 104th

(continued...)

7

actions have been prompted by national and state

organizations committed to affirming the role of English as

the common language of the United States, including U.S.

Arizonans for Official English.

Nor is the Official English issue one of fleeting

political significance. The end of the Cold War has seen

the reemergence of cultural and linguistic units as powerful

language and government, particularly the designation of

certain languages as the official languages of government,

has become a fundamental regime question threatening the

political integrity and stability of several nations, including

the former Soviet Union and Canada.’ The ongoing

struggle to preserve the Canadian federation in light of

linguistic differences will continue to fuel concerns about

oo ‘bility of simil ins in American society , whic!

* (...continued)

Cong., Ist Sess. (1995); S. 356, 104th Cong., Ist Sess. (introduced

Feb. 6, 1995); S. 175, 104th Cong., Ist Sess. (introduced Jan. 10,

1995); H.J. Res. 109, 104th Cong., Ist Sess. (introduced Sept. 29,

1995); H.R. 1005, 104th Cong, Ist Sess. (introduced Feb. 22, 1995);

H.R. 739, 104th Cong., Ist Sess. (introduced Jan. 31, 1995); H.R.

123, 104th Cong., Ist Sess. (introduced Jan. 10, 1995).

* ‘See, e.g., Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Comment, Through the

Looking Glass: Linguistic Separatism and National Unity, 41 Emory

LJ. 223 (1992); Terrence Meyerhoff, Note and Comment,

Multiculturalism and Language Rights in Canada: Problems and

Prospects for Equality and Unity, 9 Am. U.J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 913

(1994); Kevin Sneesby, Comment, National Separation: Canada in

Context — A Legal Perspective, 53 La. L. Rev. 1357, 1358-59 (1993).

will in turn drive legal efforts regarding the official status

of the English language.°

government may require its employees to conduct official

state business in a particular language. That issue,

however, is closely related to several other issues of

national importance and great concern, and a ruling by the

Court in this case no doubt will provide guidance in related

areas. Such related issues include whether there is a right

to receive government services in languages other than

English;’ whether private employers may require their

employees to speak English during business hours;*

whether the government may require private businesses to

* For example, in arguing for federal Official English

legislation in recent congressional hearings, amicus U.S. Representative

Toby Roth queried, “Could America fragment like Canada almost did?”

He warned that the recent Quebec vote on secession was a “red

warning light” for Americans. Jim Abrams, Official English Needed

to Keep Nation Together, Supporters Say, Ariz. J., Dec. 27, 1995, at

4. Similarly, U.S. Senator Richard Shelby noted that “Canada offers

a great case in point” for the proposition “that accommodating diverse

languages only promotes instability, resentment and a threat to national

sovereignty.” id. |

’ See Guadalupe Org., Inc. v. Tempe Elementary Sch. Dist.

No. 3, 587 F.2d 1022 (9th Cir. 1978); Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d

738 (9h Cir. 1973); Toure v. United States, 24 F.3d 444 (2d Cir.

1994); Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1983), cert.

denied, 466 U.S. 929 (1984); Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215 (6th

Cir. 1975).

* See Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir.

1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2726 (1994); Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty

Corp., 813 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1987); Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264

(Sth Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1113 (1981).

9

communicate certain messages (such as consumer product

safety warnings) in languages other than English;’ and

whether linguistic skills may properly be considered in jury

selection." While different legal standards apply in many

of these other contexts, as a practical matter there will no

doubt be a substantial spill-over effect from a decision by

this Court in this case.

This Court’s guidance on such issues is indispensable.

The Ninth Circuit’s 6-5 en banc decision turns in great

measure on the interpretation and application of decisions

by this Court, including not only its seminal decision on

language rights in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390

(1923), but also several recent decisions bearing on the

First Amendment rights of public employees.'’ Only this

Court can give definitive instruction on the meaning and

import of its prior decisions.

* See Stanley Indus. v. W.M. Barr & Co., 784 F. Supp. 1570

(S.D. Fla. 1992); Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 423 (Ct.

App. 1992), rev'd, 863 P.2d 167 (Cal. 1993); 40 C.F.R. § 156.206(e)

(1995) (EPA regulation requiring Spanish-language warning statements

in certain circumstances); 16 C.F.R. § 307.5 (1995) (FTC regulation

requiring tobacco warnings to be in predominant language of non-

English periodicals).

© See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991);

Pemberthy v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 857 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.

439 (1994); United States v. Ramos Colon, 415 F. Supp. 459 (D.P.R.

1976).

"See Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 115

S. Ct. 2510 (1995); Waters v. Churchill, 114 S$. Ct. 1878 (1994); Rust

v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991); Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill. ,

497 U.S. 62 (1990); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).

10

II. The Issues Presented by the Petition Are Ready for

Review by this Court.

This case and the issues it presents are ripe for review

by this Court. While only the Ninth Circuit among the

Courts of Appeals has rendered a decision on the

constitutionality of an Official English provision, it would

be both unnecessary and unproductive for this Court to pass

on this opportunity in order to allow the issues to percolate

among the circuits. This is not a situation in which only

one three-judge panel has considered the merits of the legal

controversy. In this action alone, thirteen Ninth Circuit

judges — the equivalent of more than four circuit panels —

have written or joined panel or en banc opinions. The

Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, voted 6-5 to strike down

Arizona’s constitutional provision, and produced one

majority opinion, two concurring opinions, and three

dissenting opinions. Nor is this the only case in which the

Ninth Circuit has considered English-language-only rules

for public employees.'"* Where the issue was of such

pressing concern, this Court has accepted review without

requiring consideration by multiple circuits or even one

circuit."

That the issues have been sufficiently raised and

explored is confirmed not only by the lower courts’ several

2 See Gutierrez v. Municipal Court, 838 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir.),

reh'g denied, 861 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1988) (Kozinski, J.,

dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc), vacated, 490 U.S. 1016

(1989).

See, e.g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 362

(1989) (granting certiorari before judgment in the Eighth Circuit in

order to consider constitutional issues).

11

opinions, but also by the extensive legal commentary and

scholarship on Official English proposals that have been

published over many years." In addition, numerous

analyses have been published about related issues, including

the relationship between government and language rights,'*

“See, e.g., Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official

English Controversy (James Crawford ed. 1992); Dennis E. Baron, The

English-Only Question: An Official Language for Americans (1990);

Perspectives on Official English (Karen L. Adams & Daniel T. Brink

eds. 1990); Daniel J. Garfield, Don't Box Me In: The

Unconstitutionality of Amendment 2 and English-Only Amendments , 89

Nw. U.L. Rev. 690 (1995); Andrew P. Averbach, Note, Language

Classifications and the Equal Protection Clause: When Is Language a

Pretext for Race or Ethnicity?, 74 B.U.L. Rev. 481 (1994); Andre

Sole, Official English: A Socratic Dialogue/Law and Economics

Analysis, 45 Fla. L. Rev. 803 (1993); Carol Schmid, Comment,

Language Rights and the Legal Status of English-Only Laws in the

Public and Private Sector, 20 N.C. Cent. L.J. 65 (1992); Juan F.

Perea, Demography and Distrust: An Essay on American Languages,

Cultural Pluralism, and Official English, 77 Minn. L. Rev. 269 (1992);

Rachel F. Moran, Irritation and Intrigue: The Intricacies of Language

Rights and Language Policy, 85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 790 (1991); Antonio

J. Califa, Declaring English the Official Language: Prejudice Spoken

Here, 24 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 293 (1989); Note, "Official

English”: Federal Limits on Efforts to Curtail Bilingual Services in the

States, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1345 (1987); Valerie A. Lexion, Note,

Language Minority Voting Rights and the English Language

Amendment, 14 Hastings Const. L.Q. 657 (1987); Joseph Leibowicz,

Comment, The Proposed English Language Amendment: Shield or

Sword?, 3 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 519 (1985).

'° See, e.g., Jose Roberto Juarez, Jr., The American Tradition

of Language Rights: The Forgotten Right to Government in a "Known

Tongue", 13 Law & Ineq. J. 443 (1995); Bill Ong Hing, Beyond the

Rhetoric of Assimilation and Cultural Pluralism: Addressing the

Tension of Separatism and Conflict in an Immigration-Driven

(continued...)

12

English-only policies in private employment settings,"

language requirements for consumer product warnings,"

'S (.. continued)

Multiracial Society, 81 Calif. L. Rev. 863 (1993).

'* See, e.g., David T. Wiley, Note, Whose Proof?: Deference

to EEOC Guidelines on Disparate Impact Discrimination Analysis of

"English-Only” Rules, 29 Ga. L. Rev. 539 (1995); Dan Cooperider &

Stephen Wiss, Employment Law: The Limits of Deference: The Ninth

Circuit Rejects EEOC Guidelines on English-Only Rules in the

Workplace — Garcia v. Spun Steak, 25 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 119

(1995); Tanya J. Stanish, Comment, English-Only Rules in the

Workplace: Discrimination or Employer Prerogative? A Comment on

Spun Steak v. Garcia, 7 DePaul Bus. L.J. 435 (1995); Jeffrey D.

Kirtner, Note, English-Only Rules and the Role of Perspective in Title

VII Claims, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 871 (1995); Patrick Wallace, Note,

English-Only Rules in the Workplace: Examining the Need to Balance

the Burdens of Proof Under Disparate Impact Analysis, 7 DePaul Bus.

L.J. 223 (1994); Cara D. Helper, Comment, Enforcing the Equal

Because of National Origin: The Overextension of English-Only Rules

in Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 79 Minn. L. Rev. 391 (1994); Juan F.

Perea, English-Only Rules and the Right to Speak One's Primary

Language in the Workplace, 23 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 265 (1990); Aileen

Maria Ugalde, Comment, "No Se Habla Espafiol”: English-Only Rules

in the Workplace, 44 U. Miami L. Rev. 1209 (May 1990); Linda M.

Mealey, Note, English-Only Rules and “Innocent” Employers:

Under Title Vil, 74 Minn. L. Rev. 387 (1989).

" See, e.g., R. Geoffrey Dillard, Note, Multilingual Warning

Labels: Product Liability, "Official English,” and Consumer Safety, 29

Ga. L. Rev. 197 (1994); Linda M. Baldwin, Note, Ramirez v. Plough,

Inc.: Should Manufacturers of Nonprescription Drugs Have a Duty to

Warn in Spanish?, 29 U.S.F.L. Rev. 837 (1995); Thomas H. Lee,

Note, A Purposeful Approach to Products Liability Warnings and Non-

English-Speaking Consumers, 47 Vand. L. Rev. 1107 (1994); Kelly

(continued...)

13

and language restrictions and considerations in jury

selection. "*

Moreover, this case is procedurally appropriate for

review by this Court. The dispute is not fact-bound and

does not require further findings by the district court. The

Ninih Circuit construed the Arizona constitutional provision

on its face rather than as applied to the specific facts of

Respondent Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez.

Finally, in light of the ruling below by an en banc vote

of the Ninth Circuit, which includes many of the states

most likely to adopt and enforce Official English

provisions, it is difficult as a practical matter to see how

the issues presented by Petitioners could again be brought

before this Court for review. This Court should avail itself

of the opportunity to decide the issues presented.

"” (.. continued)

Cox, The Duty to Warn: Should California Extend the Duty to Include

Foreign Language Warnings?, 1 San Diego Justice J. 517 (1993).

=> Oa e.g., Recent Case: Constitutional Law — Peremptory

Challenges — Third Circuit Holds that Peremptory Challenges Based

on Foreign Language Ability do not Violate the Equal Protection Clause

— Pemberthy v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 857 (3d Cir. 1994), 108 Harv. L. Rev.

769 (1995); Cynthia L. Brown, Note, A Challenge to the English-

Language Requirement of the Juror Qualification Provision of New

York's Judiciary Law, 39 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 479 (1994); Andrew

McGuire, Peremptory Exclusion of Spanish-Speaking Jurors: Could

Hernandez v. New York Happen Here?, 23 N.M.L. Rev. 467 (1993).

14

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of

certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard K. Willard

Counsel of Record

Bennett Evan Cooper

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 429-3000

Daniel J. Popeo

David A. Price

Washington Legal Foundation

2009 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 588-0302

January 22, 1996