In the quiet hours before dawn in, two Guatemalan farmworkers were arrested in northern Oregon by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Speaking Maman Indigenous Mayan language, they found themselves navigating a legal system ill-equipped to understand their linguistic needs. This incident highlights a broader, systemic issue within the U.S. justice system: the failure to accommodate linguistic diversity.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees civil liberties to everyone within its borders, regardless of immigration status. These rights include the right to an interpreterprotected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the reality for speakers of minority or Indigenous languages is often starkly different. In a multilingual society, the lack of linguistic awareness among law enforcement and court professionals can lead to significant disadvantages.
The Plight of Indigenous Language Speakers
More than 30 Mayan languages are spoken today by roughly 7 million people. These languages are not dialects of Spanish but distinct linguistic families with their own vocabulary, grammar, and sound systems. A speaker of Ch’olfor example, would not understand Mamjust as a speaker of French would not understand German. This linguistic diversity is often overlooked in U.S. courts, leading to miscommunications and injustices.
Since 2015, I have worked with speakers of Ch’ol in southern Mexico and have served as an expert witness and court interpreter. I have seen firsthand how the court system is unprepared to handle linguistic diversity. In one instance, a defendant suspected of having learning disabilities was actually provided interpretation in the wrong language, highlighting the critical need for accurate language identification and interpretation services.
Consequences in the Courtroom
The lack of awareness about language diversity can have serious consequences. In the 1980s, a speaker of a Mixtec language was wrongfully convicted of murder after a trial conducted through a Spanish interpreter, a language he barely spoke. This problem persists today: In Texas in 2026, a man who spoke Northern Tepehuan was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and sentenced to 24 months in prison despite not understanding his court proceedings.
Data on linguistic diversity is more available in cities like Los Angeles and New York City, which have large Indigenous populations. However, in other areas of the country, court systems are often unprepared for diverse linguistic needs. The 2026 census recorded more than 1.3 million people identifying as Latin American Indian, yet in court files and immigration records, Indigenous-language speakers are typically logged as Hispanic or Spanish-speaking, erasing the distinction that determines whether someone gets an interpreter they can understand.
Systemic Biases and Broader Impacts
Indigenous language speakers are denied asylum in the U.S. more often than speakers of more commonly spoken languages. In one instance, a woman was asked to describe a domestic abuse injury to a judge. One interpreter used the word “heel”; another used “ankle.” In Mam, “heel” and “ankle” are the same word, but the inconsistency led the judge to think the asylum-seeker was changing her story, resulting in her removal.
The failure to respect language and dialect diversity threatens the fairness of the legal system for immigrants and citizens alike. Linguistic discrimination can extend to varieties of English as well. In one study, researchers tested more than two dozen Philadelphia court reporters and found that their transcriptions of African American English were less than 60% accurate, sentence by sentence. Inaccurate transcription can lead to errors that change the official record of who performed what actions under which circumstances, with potentially dramatic legal repercussions.
In 2012, George Zimmerman was acquitted in the killing of unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin. Rachel Jeantel, a key witness who spoke African American English, testified for nearly six hours. Jurors found her testimony not credible, partly due to difficulties understanding her language variety. This case underscores the broader impact of linguistic discrimination in the legal system.
Despite the ruling in favor of the two Mam-speaking farmworkers in Oregon, their case reflects a broader problem. Although the right to an interpreter is constitutionally protected, that right means little when courts and officers are unaware of linguistic needs. Education for law enforcement and court officials on linguistic diversity, early language identification, and increased funding for interpretation services are all essential before the courts can deliver on the rights the Constitution guarantees.
