Language access in New York

Issued May 2026.

If you are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or hard of hearing, you have the right to services and assistance that allow you to access important programs, activities, and institutions in New York. This is called language access.

Language access is necessary to ensure that every person in our state has an equal opportunity to participate fully in society. It allows you to make informed decisions about your health care, your children’s education, and where you live. And it ensures that you have equal access to vital government services, like calling for emergency help, going to court, or renewing your driver’s license.

If you are LEP, deaf, or hard of hearing, in some situations you are entitled to free communication services, including:

• spoken interpretation into your primary language
• written translation into the most commonly spoken languages in New York
• American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation

These rights are protected by state and federal laws that cannot be altered by presidential orders or policies.

The Office of the New York State Attorney General (OAG) is committed to defending these rights, and to ensuring that you are aware of your language-access rights under state and federal law.

You can learn more about your language-access rights in specific situations in the sections of this guide that deal with medical care, schools, law enforcement, and voting.

Here are some of the most common situations in which you should receive written translation services:

You can learn more about your language-access rights in specific situations in the sections of this guide that deal with medical care, schools, law enforcement, and voting.

Under the Language Access Law, these agencies must provide vital documents in the 12 most common non-English languages spoken by LEP New Yorkers, based on census data. As of 2025, these languages are:

If you are obtaining agency services or benefits, these agencies must provide free interpretation services in your primary language, even if it is not one of the 12 most common non-English languages.[35]

The state Language Access Law does not apply to federal, county, or city agencies, but federal and state antidiscrimination laws may protect your language-access rights when you interact with county and municipal agencies. In addition, some counties and cities in New York have adopted the Language Access Law or passed their own language-access laws and executive orders. 

New York City law requires city agencies that provide direct public services to offer telephonic interpretation in at least 100 languages.[36] In addition, those agencies must translate their most commonly distributed documents into Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Bengali, Haitian-Creole, Korean, Arabic, Urdu, French, and Polish.[37]

Westchester County[38], Suffolk County[39], Nassau County[40], and Monroe County[41] have their own laws, executive orders, or language-access plans that require translation and interpretation services in agencies that provide services to the public.

Protections for English language learner students

Under federal and state law, public schools must ensure that ELL students have an equal opportunity to learn and benefit from school resources. 

Protections for deaf and hard-of-hearing students

Protections for parents and guardians

Under federal and state law, schools must provide language-access services that allow LEP, deaf, and hard-of-hearing parents to meaningfully participate in their children’s education. Schools must also provide special supports for parents of ELL students. These protections apply equally to guardians, stepparents, and all other adults with custody of a student.

What powers does the President have? 

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is responsible for making laws, and the President is responsible for ensuring that those laws are “faithfully executed,” or properly carried out.[165] One of the ways Presidents can use this power is by issuing written directives called executive orders that tell federal agencies and others how they should interpret and implement federal laws through policies and other actions.

Federal executive orders and policies

On March 1, 2025, the President signed an executive order designating English the official language of the United States. This order also revoked an earlier executive order that had directed agencies to improve language-access services.[166] Following the March 2025 order, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked federal agencies to take various actions to carry out the President’s order.[167] These actions include providing English-only services when allowed by law, and cutting costs by using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine translation when providing language-access services.

These policy changes may affect language-access in several important ways. Federal agencies will likely reduce efforts to provide language-access services to LEP individuals in programs they deliver. Agencies’ increased reliance on AI and machine translation may decrease the accuracy of any language-access services they still provide. In addition, federal agencies that have traditionally enforced language-access laws and policies may reduce, or entirely stop, their efforts to protect those rights.[168] These are only some of the ways that federal actions can affect your language-access rights, and this guide does not attempt to catalogue them all.

Although these changes are significant, you still have strong language-access rights in New York under federal, state, and local laws. You can learn more about these rights in other sections of this guide.

Under other federal laws, recipients of federal financial assistance must provide certain language-access services.[171] Federal financial assistance takes many forms, including grants, training, equipment use, and other types of aid. Some of the institutions that receive this aid include:

• public schools
• hospitals
• nursing homes
• universities and colleges
• programs for families and children
• public and private contractors and subcontractors
• state, county, and local agencies

In addition, dozens of federal laws require accommodations for LEP, deaf, and hard-of-hearing individuals in specific circumstances. Here are a few examples:

Other laws require specific businesses and agencies to provide information in multiple languages.[198]

Even if the federal government reduces its efforts to enforce these legal protections, private individuals, organizations, and state attorneys general can still bring lawsuits under many of these laws to ensure that you retain access to important services, activities, and institutions.

In addition to these resources, several cities and counties across New York state have their own complaint forms.

[1] Hospitals in New York state are required to provide LEP, deaf, and hard-of-hearing individuals with a skilled interpreter in inpatient, outpatient, and emergency service settings. N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb; N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. (NYCRR) Tit. 10 § 405.7(b)(1). New York hospitals are also required to post signage alerting patients to the availability of free language-assistance services and must identify and document the language preferences and needs of each patient. N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb(5)–(7); 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(v)-(vii). LEP pharmacy customers are entitled to free, competent oral interpretation services and translations of prescription labels and other written materials at pharmacies that are part of a group of eight or more pharmacies located in New York with the same owner. N.Y. Educ. Law § 6829(1)(a), (2)(a). These pharmacies, as well as mail-order pharmacies, must also provide interpretation and translation services when counseling LEP customers about prescription medications and when providing consumers with warning labels, medication labels, or other written materials. 8 NYCRR § 63.11(b).

[2] See N.Y. Office of Gen. Servs. and N.Y. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, Language Access Plan for Limited English Proficient Individuals, https://ogs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/11/nys-lap-2024_dmv.pdf. The DMV “operates 31 public-facing offices (State DMVs) in the following counties: Albany, Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Onondaga, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester. In the remaining counties, there are 100 public-facing office locations operated by County Clerks (County DMVs) who act as agents of DMV” but “are not subject to the Language Access Law.” Office of the N.Y. State Comptroller, Report 2024-F-33, Dep’t of Motor Vehicles: Language Access Servs., Apr. 10, 2025, https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/state-agencies/audits/pdf/sga-2025-24f33.pdf, at 1.

[3] N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(1). You can learn more about these rights in the section “Access to interpretation and translation services” in this guide.

[4] New York City law requires city agencies that provide direct public services to provide telephonic interpretation in at least 100 languages. N.Y.C. Admin. Code, § 23-1101 et seq. Westchester County Executive Order No. 1 of 2019 requires county departments that provide direct public services to provide interpretation services between the department and individuals seeking the provision of services or benefits in the individual’s primary language. It prohibits departments from using online translation tools for interpretation, from using “[o]ther clients or informal interpreters,” and from relying on clients’ family members as “the primary source of translation,” but it permits the use of “someone provided by the Community Based Organizations and Service Providers” as an interpreter. Suffolk County Executive Order No. 10 of 2012 requires county agencies overseen by the County Executive that provide direct public services to provide competent interpretation services between the agency and individuals seeking the provision of services or benefits in the individual’s primary language, among other requirements. This executive order was codified into law in 2018 when the Suffolk County Legislature adopted Suffolk County Local Law 16, Suffolk Cnty. Admin. Local Laws, chap. 143. Nassau County Executive Order No. 72 of 2013 requires county departments that provide direct services to the public to “provide competent interpretation services between the department and a program or service recipient and/or participant in his/her primary language,” whether through a competently bilingual county employee or an available interpretation service.

[5] 42 U.S.C. § 5151(a).

[6] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibits any individual from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under a health program or activity that is either administered by a federal executive agency or receives federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a). LEP individuals are entitled to receive language-access services that are free, accurate, and timely when they are seeking to access qualifying health programs or activities, including Medicare and Medicaid. 45 C.F.R. § 92.201(a), (b). Individuals with disabilities also must be provided auxiliary aids and services where necessary for the individual to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a health program or activity. These aids must be provided free of charge, in accessible formats, and in a timely manner. Id. § 92.202(b). 

[7] The Food Stamp Act (FSA) requires each state agency administering SNAP, including local offices at the county level operating the program on the State’s behalf, to use appropriate bilingual personnel and printed materials in administering the program in areas with a substantial number of low-income households that speak a language other than English. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(1)(B); see Haskins v. Stanton, 621 F. Supp. 622, 628 (N.D. Ind. 1985) (finding that plaintiffs’ claim that state and county agencies failed to use appropriate bilingual personnel in violation of the FSA was likely to succeed), aff’d, 794 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1986). Although some courts have found that there is no private right of action under the FSA, see Almendares v. Palmer, 284 F. Supp. 2d 799, 808 (N.D. Ohio 2003), the Seventh and Fifth Circuits have recognized a private right of action against state officials under the act, see Haskins, 794 F.2d at 1274 (applying Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), and inferring private remedy); Victorian v. Miller, 813 F.2d 718, 724 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Owen v. CDPU, No. 21-CV-628-WMC, 2022 WL 203476, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 24, 2022) (citing Haskins). In New York, state regulations provide that all SNAP applicants must be informed of their program rights and responsibilities, and that, where appropriate, such information must be provided in languages other than English. 18 NYCRR § 387.2(t).

[8] “[N]o social services district or official shall establish or apply any policy or practice which would have the effect of discriminating against an individual because of race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion or handicap. This prohibition shall apply to all aid, care, services, benefits or privileges provided directly, or indirectly by other agencies, organizations or institutions participating under contractual or other arrangements.” 18 NYCRR § 303.1. New York Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) Administrative Directive 06-ADM-05 provides guidance to social service districts about providing translations, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services to LEP, deaf, and hard-of-hearing applicants for Temporary Assistance, food stamps, and assistance under the Home Energy Assistance Program. See OTDA, Admin. Directive 06-ADM-05, Providing Access to Temp. Assistance Programs for Persons with Disabilities and/or Limited English Proficiency (LEP), revised Apr. 27, 2006, https://otda.ny.gov/policy/directives/2006/ADM/06-ADM-05.pdf; see also OTDA, Information Letter 17-INF-14, Language Access for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), Dec. 19, 2017, https://otda.ny.gov/policy/directives/2017/INF/17-INF-14.pdf (reiterating social service districts’ legal responsibility to provide qualified interpreters to LEP individuals, and cautioning that districts should not rely on an applicant or recipient’s family members or friends to interpret, except “as a last resort alternative”).

[9] “Whenever any deaf of hard of hearing person is a party to a legal proceeding of any nature, or a witness or juror or prospective juror therein, the court in all instances shall appoint a qualified interpreter … to interpret the proceeding to, and the testimony of, such deaf or hard of hearing person….” N.Y. Judiciary Law § 390(1); see also id. § 387 (“If the services of an interpreter be required in any court and there be no unemployed official interpreter to act therein, the court may appoint an interpreter to act temporarily in such court.”). State regulations extend the right to an interpreter to LEP parties and witnesses in criminal and civil state court proceedings, and to LEP parents and guardians of minor parties in Family Court proceedings. 22 NYCRR § 217.1(a) (“In all civil and criminal cases, when a court determines that a party or witness, or an interested parent or guardian of a minor party in a Family Court proceeding, is unable to understand and communicate in English to the extent that he or she cannot meaningfully participate in the court proceedings, the clerk of the court or another designated administrative officer shall schedule an interpreter at no expense … to interpret by telephone or live audiovisual means.”). 

In addition, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution require courts to provide LEP, deaf, and hard-of-hearing criminal defendants with interpreters that “permit [them] to participate effectively in [their] own defense” and be confronted with adverse witnesses through cross-examination, when a court is aware of a defendant’s language barriers. U.S. ex rel. Negron v. State of N.Y., 434 F.2d 386, 389–91 (2d Cir. 1970); People v. DeArmas, 106 A.D.2d 659, 660 (2d Dep’t 1984) (“[T]rial court's ruling restricting defendant's use of the official court interpreter during trial and restricting his opportunity to obtain his own interpreter to sit at the counsel table had the effect of depriving the defendant of due process of law and the effective assistance of counsel.”). But see People v. Ramos, 26 N.Y.2d 272, 274 (1970) (“The right to an interpreter … may be waived where a defendant, or his attorney, fails to call to the attention of the trial court, in some appropriate manner, the fact that he does not possess sufficient understanding of the English language.”). “State Courts have also recognized that interpreters are necessary to ensure meaningful participation in the context of civil cases.” Matter of Lizotte v. Johnson, 4 Misc. 3d 334, 342 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 2004).

[10] 22 NYCRR § 217.1(a).

[11] In the case of all criminal or civil court proceedings in U.S. district courts, including pretrial and grand jury proceedings, the Court Interpreters Act requires that interpreters be provided to any party or witness who “speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language” or has “a hearing impairment … so as to inhibit such party’s comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel or the presiding judicial officer, or so as to inhibit such party’s comprehension of questions and the presentation of such testimony.” 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1). “[T]he general standard for the adequate translation of trial proceedings requires continuous word for word translation of everything relating to the trial a defendant conversant in English would be privy to hear.” United States v. Joshi, 896 F.2d 1303, 1309 (11th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(d) further provides that a “court may appoint an interpreter of its choosing” when taking a witness’s testimony. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 28 similarly grants federal courts the authority to appoint free interpreters for criminal proceedings.

LEP, deaf, and hard-of-hearing criminal defendants’ right to an interpreter is further protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. v. Si, 333 F.3d 1041, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2003); see U.S. v. Mosquera, 816 F. Supp. 168, 175 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (holding that the Constitution requires translations of documents).

[12] Noncitizens have a Fifth Amendment Due Process right to a competent interpreter when language barriers would otherwise interfere with their ability to receive a full and fair hearing in adjudicatory immigration court proceedings, such as removal or asylum proceedings. Amadou v. I.N.S., 226 F.3d 724, 726–27 (6th Cir. 2000); see Abdullah v. I.N.S., 184 F.3d 158, 164 (2d Cir. 1999) (assuming without deciding that noncitizens have a right to interpretation services when “defending the legality of their presence in the country,” but not when “requesting admission at the border” (emphasis in original)). Further, Immigration Judges must “take adequate steps to evaluate whether” interpretation services are necessary to ensure a full and fair hearing on matters such as applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. B.C. v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 12 F.4th 306, 313–14 (3d Cir. 2021).

[13] N.Y. Admin. Pro. Act § 301(6) (“Whenever any deaf person is a party to an adjudicatory proceeding before an agency, or a witness therein, such agency in all instances shall appoint a qualified interpreter who is certified by a recognized national or New York state credentialing authority to interpret the proceedings to, and the testimony of, such deaf person.”).

[14] N.Y. Office of Gen. Servs., Language Access Plan for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency (N.Y. State Police), Oct. 1, 2024, https://ogs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/10/nys-lap-2024_nysp.pdf, at 5–7, 9–10.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 9-10.

[17] N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 14-173.

[18] N.Y. Exec. Law § 259-i(7)–(8) (requiring the appointment of a qualified interpreter for any deaf or LEP person participating in an interview, parole release hearing, preliminary hearing, or revocation hearing). 

[19] If you need help voting because you are LEP, deaf, hard-of-hearing, or otherwise have difficulty reading or writing in English, you can bring someone to assist you in voting. Your voting helper does not have to be a U.S. citizen, a registered voter, or even an adult, but they cannot be your employer, an agent of your employer, or an officer or agent of your union. 52 U.S.C. § 10508; see Arkansas United v. Thurston, 517 F. Supp. 3d 777, 786 (W.D. Ark. 2021) (holding that 52 U.S.C. § 10508 applies to LEP voters). Your voting helper can help you throughout the entire voting process, including before and after voting and inside the voting booth. 52 U.S.C. § 10310(c)(1); OCA-Greater Houston v. Texas, 867 F.3d 604, 614–15 (5th Cir. 2017). Before assisting you, your helper may have to swear an oath that they will not improperly influence you. N.Y. Elec. Law § 8-306(5). The NYC Civic Engagement Commission (NYCCEC) provides language services to LEP voters during elections. The NYCCEC’s Voter Language Assistance Program provides interpretation services at select poll sites in the following languages: Arabic, Bengali, Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin), French, Haitian Creole, Italian, Korean, Polish, Russian, Urdu, Yiddish. See NYCCEC, Upcoming Elections and Voter Language Assistance Servs., https://www.nyc.gov/site/civicengagement/our-programs/poll-site-language-access.page; see also OAG, Voting Resources: Language Assistance Guidance, https://ag.ny.gov/voting-resources#language.

[20] LEP pharmacy customers are entitled to free, competent oral interpretation services and translations of prescription labels and other important written materials at pharmacies that are part of a group of eight or more pharmacies located in New York with the same owner. N.Y. Educ. Law § 6829(1)(a), (2)(a). These pharmacies and mail order pharmacies must also provide interpretation and translation services when counseling LEP customers about prescription medications and when providing consumers with warning labels, medication labels, or other written materials. 8 NYCRR § 63.11(b). Translation services must be provided “in the LEP individuals’ preferred pharmacy primary language.” N.Y. Educ. Law § 6829(2)(a).

[21] 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(v)–(vii), (b)(1); see also N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb. Hospitals in New York State are required to conduct an annual assessment to identify any LEP groups that make up more than one percent of the hospital’s service area population. For languages identified, hospitals must provide translations of significant hospital forms and instructions. N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb; 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(x).

[22] See N.Y. Office of Gen. Servs. and N.Y. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, Language Access Plan for Limited English Proficient Individuals, https://ogs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/11/nys-lap-2024_dmv.pdf. The DMV “operates 31 public-facing offices (State DMVs) in the following counties: Albany, Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Onondaga, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester. In the remaining counties, there are 100 public-facing office locations operated by County Clerks (County DMVs) who act as agents of DMV” but “are not subject to the Language Access Law.” Office of the N.Y. State Comptroller, Report 2024-F-33, Dep’t of Motor Vehicles: Language Access Servs., Apr. 10, 2025, https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/state-agencies/audits/pdf/sga-2025-24f33.pdf, at 1.

[23] N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(1). You can learn more about these rights in the section "Access to interpretation and translation services" in this guide.

[24] New York City law requires city agencies that provide direct public services to translate their most commonly distributed documents into Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Bengali, Haitian-Creole, Korean, Arabic, Urdu, French, and Polish. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 23-1101 et seq. Westchester County Executive Order No. 1 of 2019 requires county departments that provide direct public services to translate vital documents into Spanish, Italian, Chinese, French (including Haitian Creole), Arabic, Tagalog, Japanese, Albanian and any of the six most common languages spoken by LEP individuals in the county. Suffolk County Executive Order No. 10 of 2012 requires county agencies overseen by the County Executive that provide direct public services to translate vital documents into the six most common non-English languages spoken by LEP individuals in the county. This executive order was codified into law in 2018 when the Suffolk County Legislature adopted Suffolk County Local Law 16, Suffolk Cnty. Admin. Local Laws, chap. 143. Nassau County Executive Order No. 67 of 2013 requires, among other things, that county departments that provide direct services to the public provide vital documents in the six most common non-English languages spoken by LEP individuals in the county.

[25] N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 21-332(b)(2), 23-1102.

[26] The ACA prohibits any individual from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under a health program or activity that is either administered by a federal executive agency or receives federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a). LEP individuals are entitled to receive language-access services, including translation services, that are free, accurate, and timely when they seek to access qualifying health programs or activities, including Medicare and Medicaid. 45 C.F.R. § 92.201(a)–(b). If an entity administering a qualified health program or activity uses machine translation to provide LEP individuals with translation services, the machine translation must be reviewed by a human translator if the document is “critical to the rights, benefits, or meaningful access of an individual with Limited English proficiency, when accuracy is essential, or when the source documents or materials contain complex, non-literal, or technical language.” Id. § 92.201(c)(3). 

Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals also must be provided auxiliary aids and services where needed for the individual to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a health program or activity. These aids must be provided free of charge, in accessible formats, and in a timely manner. Id. § 92.202(b).

[27] The Food Stamp Act (FSA) requires each state agency administering SNAP, including local offices at the county level operating the program on a state’s behalf, to use appropriate bilingual printed materials in administering the program in areas with a substantial number of low-income households that speak a language other than English. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(1)(B).

[28] The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) requires a “board of elections or a political subdivision [e.g., a county, city, town, village, or school district] that administers elections” to provide “language-related assistance” to a “language-minority group in a political subdivision” if certain numerical and population percentage thresholds are met for LEP members of language-minority groups. N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-208(1). “Language-minority group” is defined as “persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” Id. § 17-204(5-a). The “language-related assistance” described in the NYVRA includes translation of “registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process, including ballots.”Id. § 17-208(2). You can find the New York State Board of Elections’ list of political subdivisions required to provide Spanish assistance and its list of counties required to provide assistance in other languages on the New York State Board of Elections’ website

[29] When a new employee is hired, the employer must provide the employee a written notice that identifies the rates of pay and the basis of those rates in English and any other language the employee has identified as their primary language. N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(1)(a). The Workers’ Compensation Board provides interpretation services in any preferred language and provides translations of important forms and documents in at least the 12 most commonly spoken languages in New York (Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Yiddish, Bengali, Korean, Haitian Creole, Italian, Arabic, Polish, French, and Urdu). You can request interpretation services or get a document translated by sending an email to LanguageAccessCoordinator@wcb.ny.gov or by calling 877-632-4996. You can learn more about these language-access services by visiting the Workers’ Compensation Board’s website. See also N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 17-a(1) (“[T]he [Workers’ Compensation] board shall provide translation of (a) all documents and forms published by the board that injured employees complete; (b) all board documents that provide general information to injured employees on the process of applying for workers' compensation benefits; and (c) all other vital documents …”); id. § 17-a(2) (“The board shall provide interpretation services to injured employees with respect to its provision of services, information and/or benefits.”).

[30] N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(1).

[31] Id. § 202-a(1), (4)(a).

[32] Id. § 202-a(5).

[33] Although OAG is not an agency that provides direct services or benefits to the public under the Language Access Law, OAG is committed to language access and strives to utilize interpretation and other auxiliary services and aids, as appropriate, during interactions with LEP, deaf, and hard-of-hearing members of the public.

[34] N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(1); N.Y. Office of Gen. Servs., New York State Language Access Law, New York State Language Access Law | Office of General Services.

[35] N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(4)(a).

[36] N.Y.C. Admin. Code, § 23-1101 et seq.

[37] Id.

[38] Westchester County Executive Order No. 1 of 2019 requires county departments that provide direct public services to translate vital documents into Spanish, Italian, Chinese, French (including Haitian Creole), Arabic, Tagalog, Japanese, Albanian, and any of the six most common languages spoken by LEP individuals in the county. The executive order further requires these departments to provide interpretation services between the department and individuals seeking the provision of services or benefits in the individual’s primary language. It prohibits departments from using online translation tools for interpretation, from using “[o]ther clients or informal interpreters,” and from relying on clients’ family members as “the primary source of translation,” but it permits the use of “someone provided by the Community Based Organizations and Service Providers” as an interpreter.

[39] Suffolk County Executive Order No. 10 of 2012 requires county agencies overseen by the County Executive that provide direct public services to translate vital documents into the six most common non-English languages spoken by LEP individuals in the county. The executive order also requires those agencies to provide competent interpretation services between the agency and individuals seeking the provision of services or benefits in the individual’s primary language, among other requirements. This executive order was codified into law in 2018 when the Suffolk County Legislature adopted Suffolk County Local Law 16, Suffolk Cnty. Admin. Local Laws, chap. 143.

[40] Nassau County Executive Order No. 67 of 2013 requires, among other things, that county departments that provide direct services to the public provide vital documents in the six most common non-English languages spoken by LEP individuals in the county. Nassau County Executive Order No. 72 of 2013 requires those departments to “provide competent interpretation services between the department and a program or service recipient and/or participant in his/her primary language,” whether through a competently bilingual county employee or an available interpretation service.

[41] The Monroe County Language Access Plan establishes guidelines for county agencies and programs to follow when developing and implementing reasonable accommodations for LEP individuals.

[42] “‘General hospital’ means a hospital engaged in providing medical or medical and surgical services primarily to in-patients by or under the supervision of a physician on a twenty-four hour basis with provisions for admission or treatment of persons in need of emergency care and with an organized medical staff and nursing service, including facilities providing services relating to particular diseases, injuries, conditions or deformities. The term general hospital shall not include a residential health care facility, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, out-patient lodge, dispensary and laboratory or central service facility serving more than one institution.” N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2801(10).

[43] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb; 10 NYCRR § 405.7(b)(1); see id. § 405.1 (applying these requirements to general hospitals).

[44] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb(8); 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(viii) (providing that individuals younger than 16 should only be used as interpreters in “emergent circumstances” and that their use should be documented in the medical record).

[45] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb(6); 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(vi).

[46] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb(7); 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(vi).

[47] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb(3); 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(iii).

[48] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb(5); 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(v).

[49] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb(4); 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(iv). In addition, general hospitals must conduct an annual assessment to identify any LEP groups that make up more than one percent of the hospital’s service area population. For languages identified, hospitals must provide translations of significant hospital forms and instructions. N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb; 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(x).

[50] 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(ix)(a). This requirement applies to requests for interpreters by the patient, the patient's family or representative, or the provider of medical care. Id.; see also N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb(9) (“Interpreters and persons skilled in communicating with vision and/or hearing-impaired individuals shall be available to patients within a reasonable period of time from a request to general hospital administration by the patient, the patient's family or representative or the provider of medical care.”).

[51] 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7)(ix)(a).

[52] N.Y. Educ. Law § 6829(2)(a); see id. § 6829(1)(a) (defining covered pharmacies as pharmacies that are part of a group of eight or more pharmacies located in New York with the same ownership).

[53] 8 NYCRR § 63.11(b)(1).

[54] Id. § 63.11(b)(2).

[55] 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a) (“[A]n individual shall not … be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance, including credits, subsidies, or contracts of insurance, or under any program or activity that is administered by an Executive Agency …”); 45 C.F.R. § 92.201 (requiring covered entities—those under the auspices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services or those receiving federal financial assistance—to provide language assistance services that are free of charge, accurate, and timely to LEP individuals).

[56] 45 C.F.R. § 92.202 (requiring covered entities to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services free of charge and in a timely manner to assist individuals with disabilities in participating in a health program or activity). 

[57] 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)–(b); see Basta v. Novant Health Inc., 56 F.4th 307, 318 (4th Cir. 2022) (deaf husband stated a claim under the Rehabilitation Act against hospital that denied him an ASL interpreter and instead provided an ineffective auxiliary device while he was attempting to serve as his wife’s medical proxy during her delivery of their child).

[58] 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12182(a) (“No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.”).

[59] N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) (also prohibiting discrimination based on national origin); see Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 277–78 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding issue of material fact as to whether a hospital’s failure to provide ASL interpreter for deaf patient and patient’s wife, forcing their children to act as interpreters, violated the State and City Human Rights Laws, among other laws).

[60] N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(4) (also prohibiting discrimination based on national origin); see Loeffler, 582 F.3d at 277–78.

[61] N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(4) (same) & see Loeffler, 582 F.3d at 277–78.This guide uses the term “English language learner” instead of “limited English proficient” when referring to students.

[62] The EEOA prohibits the denial of “equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her … national origin,” including through the failure of “an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.” 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f).

[63] Id.; see Issa v. Sch. Dist. of Lancaster, 847 F.3d 121, 140 (3d Cir. 2017) (LEP students were likely to prevail on EEOA claim against school district that provided LEP students an inferior education); Methelus v. Sch. Bd. of Collier Cnty., Fla., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1277 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (allegation that district’s refusal to enroll LEP students in public school and referral of those students to a noncredit adult program stated claim under EEOA); New York by Schneiderman v. Utica City Sch. Dist., 177 F. Supp. 3d 739, 753 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (allegation that district diverted LEP students to inferior alternative education programs stated claim under EEOA); T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 223 F. Supp. 3d 321, 335 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (allegation that district failed to provide adequate translation services to LEP students with disabilities stated claim under EEOA).

[64] In the landmark case of Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court held that a school district violated Title VI’s prohibition against national-origin discrimination when it failed to provide bilingual education to ELL Chinese American students. 414 U.S. 563, 567-68 (1974); see 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. While a subsequent Supreme Court decision addressed disparate impact liability under Title VI, see Alexander v. Sandoval, 32 U.S. 275 (2001), courts continue to rely on Lau’s recognition of language-based discrimination as a form of national-origin discrimination for purposes of Title VI liability. See, e.g., T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 223 F. Supp. 3d 321, 335 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (“[N]umerous federal courts have found that language[-]based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination prohibited by Title VI.”) (collecting cases); United States v. Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1079 (D. Ariz. 2012) (“[L]ongstanding case law, federal regulations and agency interpretation of those regulations hold language-based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination under Title VI.”).

[65] 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A) (requiring “assessments and other evaluation materials” to be “provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information”); see also id. § 1412(a)(6)(B) (requiring states that receive federal funding for programs for students with disabilities to ensure that tests and evaluations for placing students with services are administered in the student’s native language or mode of communication, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so).

[66] Id. § 1414(d)(3)(B).

[67] Id. §§ 1415(b)(4), 1439(a)(7).

[68] 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 154-2.1(a) (“[E]ach school district shall provide English Language Learners equal access to all school programs and services offered by the school district, commensurate with the student’s age and grade level, including access to programs required for graduation.”).

[69] N.Y. Const. art. XI, § 1 (“The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.”); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 86 N.Y.2d 307, 315 (1995) (state Constitution guarantees a sound basic education); see Aristy-Farer v. State, 29 N.Y.3d 501, 514-15 (2017) (plaintiffs stated claim for violation of state Constitution where school districts had problems including “unsuccessful English as a Second Language programs”).

[70] New York Education Law § 3201(1) provides that “[n]o person shall be refused admission into or excluded from any public school in the state of New York on account of race, creed, color, or national origin.” The state Human Rights Law prohibits any educational institutions from “deny[ing] the use of its facilities to any person otherwise qualified, or to permit the harassment of any student or applicant, by reason of” their race, disability, national origin, or citizenship status, among other protected statuses. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(4). This applies to public schools; non-sectarian private schools; and non-sectarian for-profit colleges, universities, licensed private career schools, and English language learner schools. Id. § 292(40)(a)–(c). In the context of the similar New York City Human Rights Law, the Appellate Division, First Department, has concluded that “discrimination against limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals … constitutes discrimination based on national origin.” Boureima v. N.Y.C. Hum. Res. Admin., 128 A.D.3d 532, 533 (1st Dep’t 2015). The applicability of the NYSHRL’s prohibition against national-origin discrimination to language-based discrimination is consistent with the law’s rules of construction, which require courts to construe its prohibitions “liberally for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes [of the NYSHRL], regardless of whether federal civil rights laws, including those laws with provisions worded comparably to the provisions of [the NYSHRL], have been so construed.” N.Y. Exec. Law § 300.

The New York Civil Rights Law further provides that “[n]o person shall, because of race, creed, color, national origin, … or disability … be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights … by any other person or by any firm, corporation or institution, or by any state or any agency or subdivision of the state.” N.Y. Civ Rts. Law § 40-c(2). This applies to educational discrimination through the Executive Law, which provides that “[t]he opportunity to obtain education … without discrimination because of … national origin … or disability … is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.” N.Y. Exec. Law § 291(2).

[71] See, e.g., 8 NYCRR § 154-2.1(a).

[72] Id. § 117.3.

[73] Id. § 117.3(b)(2).

[74] N.Y. Educ. Law § 3204(2-a)–(2); 8 NYCRR § 154-2.1(a). For more information on bilingual education requirements, see 8 NYCRR §§ 154-2.2(b), 154-2.3(h)(3). For more information on English as a New Language program requirements, see id. §§ 154-2.2(h), 154-2.3(h)(1)–(2). See also N.Y. Educ. Law § 3204(3)–(8)(describing eligibility criteria and requirements for bilingual education and English as a New Language programs and empowering districts to provide additional resources and programs for ELL students, their parents, and others).

Every school district must provide an English as a New Language program for all grade levels. 8 NYCRR § 154-2.3(h)(1)–(2). In addition, each year, school districts must estimate the number of ELL students who are expected to be enrolled in each school and grade the following school year. Id. § 154-2.3(d)(1). Districts that expect to have 20 or more ELL students of the same grade level who have the same non-English home language in more than one school must provide Bilingual Education programs for at least 70% of the estimated ELL students the following school year. Id. § 154-2.3(d)(2). Districts that expect to have 20 or more ELL students of the same grade level who have the same non-English home language in the same school must provide every ELL student with a Bilingual Education program at that school the following school year. Id. § 154-2.3(d)(4). Districts must provide each ELL student “the opportunity to transfer to another school in the district that operates a Bilingual Education Program that serves the same grade level and language” if the school in which the student is enrolled does not have such a program, and must provide transportation for the student if the district offers bussing for its students. Id. § 154-2.3(d)(5); see also Id. § 154-2.3(d)(6) (providing limited exceptions to the requirements under 8 NYCRR § 154-2.3(d)).

[75] Id. § 154-2.1(b).

[76] The 1974 consent decree in Aspira of New York, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of New York remains in effect and is not impacted by recent federal executive orders. “The decree provided for a broad program: for methods of identifying those to receive bilingual instruction, for specific forms of instruction in Spanish and English, for the formulation of pertinent educational standards, the preparation and distribution of instructional materials, the recruitment and training of staff, the procurement of suitable funding, continued consultation with plaintiffs, periodic reports, and an array of other measures ...” Aspira of New York, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 423 F. Supp. 647, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (holding defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the consent decree). The consent decree is available at https://history.nycourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Aspira-Consent-Decree-8-29-74.pdf.

[77] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, 1412(a)(1)(A) §§ 1400, 1412(a)(1)(A); see Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 399, 403 (2017) (“To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an [Individualized Education Program, or “IEP”] reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.”).

[78] Remedies available under the IDEA must be exhausted before a plaintiff may pursue remedies that are available under both the ADA and IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) (“Nothing in [the IDEA] shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter,” certain procedures required under the IDEA must be exhausted); see Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S. 154, 170–71 (2017) (“In short, the IDEA guarantees individually tailored educational services, while Title II and § 504 promise non-discriminatory access to public institutions.”); B. v. Bd. of Educ. Hinsdale Twp., Hinsdale High Sch. Dist. 86, No. 24 CV 12218, 2025 WL 1666697, at *3–6 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2025) (discussing the interplay between the IDEA, ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act, and the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement); see also K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088, 1100 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[I]n some situations, but not others, schools may be required under the ADA to provide services to deaf or hard-of-hearing students that are different than the services required by the IDEA.”).

[79] Bd. of Educ. Hinsdale Twp., 2025 WL 1666697, at *4 (quoting DOJ regulations implementing the ADA, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)(1)).

[80] Id.

[81] See generally Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. A.O. by & through Owens, 92 F.4th 1159, 1178 (9th Cir. 2024) (district violated IDEA by failing to specify frequency and duration of speech therapy and audiology services in proposed IEP).

[82] See K.M. ex rel. Bright, 725 F.3d at 1103 (remanding case to district court to determine whether the ADA required district to provide word-for-word Communication Access Realtime Translation services).

[83] See Bd. of Educ. Hinsdale Twp., 2025 WL 1666697, at *1 (discussing auxiliary aids and services provided by school district).

[84] Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, applies to public schools, while Title III, id. § 12182, applies to private schools. See Berardelli v. Allied Servs. Inst. of Rehab. Med., 900 F.3d 104, 115 (3d Cir. 2018) (Title III of “the ADA brought within its sweep the wide variety of establishments available to the nondisabled, including private schools regardless of whether they receive federal funding.” (cleaned up)).

[85] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to schools that receive federal funding. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)–(b)(2)–(3).

[86] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to colleges and universities that receive federal funding. Id. § 794(a)–(b)(2).

[87] The New York State Human Rights Law prohibits any educational institutions from “deny[ing] the use of its facilities to any person otherwise qualified, or to permit the harassment of any student or applicant, by reason of” disability, among other protected statuses. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(4). This applies to public schools; non-sectarian private schools; and non-sectarian for-profit colleges, universities, licensed private career schools, and English language learner schools. Id. § 292(40)(a)–(c).                 The New York state Civil Rights Law further provides that “[n]o person shall, because of … disability … be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights … by any other person or by any firm, corporation or institution, or by any state or any agency or subdivision of the state.” N.Y. Civ. Rts. Law § 40-c(2). This applies to educational discrimination through the Executive Law, which provides that “[t]he opportunity to obtain education … without discrimination because of … disability … is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.” N.Y. Exec. Law § 291(2).

[88] Rothschild v. Grottenthaler, 907 F.2d 286, 288, 293 (2d Cir. 1990) (Rehabilitation Act requires public school receiving federal financial assistance to provide sign-language interpreter services at district’s expense to deaf parents of hearing children at school-initiated activities).

[89] See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414–1415; Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 524 (2007) (The IDEA “sets up general procedural safeguards that protect the informed involvement of parents in the development of an education for their child.”); T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 223 F. Supp. 3d 321, 330 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (allegation that school district interfered with LEP parents’ ability “to meaningfully participate in the planning and decision-making embodied in the IEP process” by failing to provide adequate interpretation and translation services was sufficient to state IDEA claim); see also Garcia v. Morath, 624 F. Supp. 3d 690, 696, 699 (W.D. Tex. 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:21-CV-1011-RP, 2023 WL 163978 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2023) (citing federal regulations interpreting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) as requiring schools that receive funding under the IDEA to provide accommodations to ensure that parents can understand and participate in IEP team meetings).

[90] Id. § 154-2.3(f)(1).

[91] Id. § 154-2.3(f)(5).

[92] Id.

[93] Id. (“Such meeting shall be conducted with a qualified interpreter/translator in the language or mode of communication the parent or person in parental relation best understands.”)

[94] Id. § 100.2(l)(4) (providing that this required notice and any informal conference must occur before the suspension begins “unless the student’s presence in the school poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disruption to the academic progress, in which case the notice and opportunity for an informal conference shall take place as soon after the suspension as is reasonably practicable”).

[95] N.Y. Educ. Law § 3214(3)(b)(1); 8 NYCRR § 100.2(l)(4). At the informal conference, “the pupil and/or person in parental relation shall be authorized to present the pupil's version of the event and to ask questions of the complaining witnesses.” N.Y. Educ. Law § 3214(3)(b)(1).

[96] 8 NYCRR § 100.2(l)(4).

[97] N.Y. Educ. Law § 3214(3)(c)(1).

[98] Id.

[99] N.Y. State Office of Children and Family Servs., A Guide to Sch. Discipline and Sch. Suspensions for Youth, Parents, and Caregivers (Nov. 2019) (“If a student’s and/or parent’s/guardian’s primary language is not English, they should request that a translator be present at the [fair] hearing.”).

[100] N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., Regulation of the Chancelor A-663, Language Access for Parents (issued June 20, 2025), available at https://www.schools.nyc.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/a-663-english.pdf.

[101] N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(4)(a). More information about the Language Access Law is available in the section “Access to interpretation and translation services” in this guide.

Most courts that have considered the question have held that the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and its New York City counterpart, the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, do not apply to arrests and other street encounters with law enforcement. See Letray v. New York State Division of Hum. Rts., 181 A.D.3d 1296, 1296 (4th Dep’t 2020); Madera v. U.S., No. 24-CV-2903 (PKC), 2025 WL 1019139, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025); O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, No. 5:22-CV-948 (MAD/TWD), 2023 WL 6066036, at *24 n. 11 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2023) (collecting cases); D.H. v. City of N.Y., 309 F. Supp. 3d 52, 81 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). But see Matchett v. Brighton Police Dep’t, No. 24-CV-6001-FPG, 2024 WL 4607728, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2024) (“The legal standards and analysis for claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and the NYSHRL are the same.” (cleaned up)); Williams v. City of N.Y., 121 F. Supp. 3d 354, 364 n. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“Protections afforded by the NYSHRL are construed coextensively with the ADA … If Plaintiff can satisfy her burden under the ADA, she will also satisfy her burden under Section 504, the NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.”).

[102] N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(1).

[103] N.Y. Office of Gen. Servs., Language Access Plan for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency (N.Y. State Police), Oct. 1, 2024, https://ogs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/10/nys-lap-2024_nysp.pdf, at 5–7, 9–10.

[104] Id.

[105] Id. at 9–10.

[106] Id.

[107] N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 23-1102(a); NYPD, Patrol Guide, Procedure No. 212-90: Guidelines for Interaction with Limited English Proficient Persons, https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/public-pguide2.pdf (detailing the language-assistance responsibilities of NYPD officers and other NYPD employees).

[108] NYPD, 2024 NYPD Language Access Implementation Plan (hereafter, “Language Access Plan”), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/eeo/2024-nypd-language-access-implementation-plan.pdf, at 2, 4; see also NYPD, Patrol Guide, Procedure No. 212-90. Absent exigent circumstances, only personnel certified as interpreters by the department should verify the details of the incident when responding to domestic violence calls involving LEP individuals, and only department-certified interpreters should be used in custodial interrogations of LEP individuals. NYPD, Language Access Plan, at 9–10.

[109] NYPD, Language Access Plan, at 4.

[110] Id. at 10.

[111] N.Y. Crim. Procedure Law § 530.11(6).

[112] ICE, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Revised Dec. 2016, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf (last accessed August 15, 2025). According to these standards, “The facility will provide detainees with disabilities with effective communication, which may include the provision of auxiliary aids, such as readers, materials in Braille, audio recordings, telephone handset amplifiers, telephones compatible with hearing aids, telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TTYs), interpreters, and note-takers, as needed. The facility will also provide detainees who are LEP with language assistance, including bilingual staff or professional interpretation and translation services, to provide them with meaningful access to its programs and activities. All written materials provided to detainees shall generally be translated into Spanish. Where practicable, provisions for written translation shall be made for other significant segments of the population with limited English proficiency. Oral interpretation or assistance shall be provided to any detainee who speaks another language in which written material has not been translated or who is illiterate.”

[113] 42 U.S.C. § 12132; see Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 673 F.3d 333, 338 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he ADA applies to police interrogations.”).

[114] See Matchett,2024 WL 4607728, at *1–5 (deaf plaintiffs stated claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act against law enforcement officers who failed to provide an ASL interpreter when responding to plaintiffs' 911 call, despite plaintiffs’ request for an interpreter); Williams, 121 F. Supp. 3d at 363–69 (finding triable issue of fact as to whether officers’ failure to provide a deaf arrestee with an interpreter or auxiliary aid at the scene of arrest violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act).

[115] Bax v. Doctors Med. Ctr. Of Modesto, Inc., 52 F.4th 858, 869 (9th Cir. 2022); Matchett, 2024 WL 4607728, at *2.

[116] Seremeth, 673 F.3d at 339 (“[T]he consideration of exigent circumstances is included in the determination of the reasonableness of the accommodation.”); Williams, 121 F. Supp. 3d at 367 (same, quoting Seremeth).

[117] 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); see Lopez Cano v. Decker, No. 22 CIV. 7428 (AKH), 2022 WL 17584156, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022) (“There is ... no dispute that DHS and ICE are executive agencies within the meaning of the [Rehabilitation] Act.”); Matchett, 2024 WL 4607728, at *2 (applying the same legal standards and analysis to claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA).

[118] 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

[119] See Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966) (“Prior to any questioning, the person [in custody] must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.”); United States v. Perez-Lopez, 348 F.3d 839, 847–49 (9th Cir. 2003) (“post-Miranda incriminating statements should have been suppressed as improperly obtained” where Miranda warning was inaccurately translated); Rivera v. Granucci, No. CIV. N-87-480 (JAC), 1993 WL 76202, at *7 (D. Conn. Mar. 12, 1993) (“Miranda warnings are effective only if they are understood by the arrestee. The failure to provide an arrested person with a Miranda warning in his own language might therefore render the arrestee's subsequent statements inadmissible on grounds that he had not knowingly waived his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”).

                Admissions of criminal liability to ICE agents are entitled to the same protections. See U.S. v. Mahmood, 415 F. Supp. 2d 13, 15, 20 (D. Mass. 2006) (suppressing incriminating statements made by noncitizen to ICE agents who failed to advise him of his right to remain silent before conducting a custodial interrogation). However, these Fifth Amendment rights may not apply in civil immigration court proceedings, such as deportation proceeding. Zuniga v. Garland, 86 F.4th 1236, 1239 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he substantial distinctions between a deportation proceeding and a criminal trial make Miranda warnings inappropriate in the deportation context.” (cleaned up)); Trias-Hernandez v. I.N.S., 528 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1975) (“The lack of an interpreter at the initial questioning does not compel a conclusion on the basis of this record that the use of the statement at the deportation hearing was fundamentally unfair.”); cf. Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 443 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[T]here was … no Fifth Amendment privilege for [noncitizens] to refuse to produce immigration documents or to refuse to answer questions about their immigration status” during interviews for a Department of Homeland Security registration program.). But see Matter of Garcia, 17 I. & N. Dec. 319, 321 (BIA 1980) (terminating removal proceedings after concluding that “respondent’s admissions which underlie the finding of deportability were involuntarily made and that the requirements of due process warrant their exclusion from the record”); Matter of Toro, 17 I. & N. Dec. 340, 343 (BIA 1980) (“To be admissible in deportation proceedings, evidence must be probative and its use fundamentally fair so as to not deprive respondents of due process of law as mandated by the fifth amendment. … The circumstances surrounding an arrest and interrogation … may in some cases render evidence inadmissible under the due process clause of the fifth amendment.”); see also Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “[t]he Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in immigration proceedings, and evidentiary determinations are limited only by due process considerations”).

[120] See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248–49 (1973) (When “the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of … consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances.”); United States v. Wilson, 11 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 1993) (noting in dictum that defendant’s “limited education and knowledge of the English language, coupled with the fact that he was not informed of his right to refuse to consent to the search [of his apartment by drug task force agents], cause us to doubt whether [he] actually consented to this search, particularly in light of the intrusive nature of the agents’ entry into the apartment”). 

[121] See United States v. Marchi, No. 317CR000553VLB, 2018 WL 1409819, at *8, 11 (D. Conn. Mar. 21, 2018) (“lack of English proficiency” was one of several factors that combined to establish that consent to search a home was not voluntary and that evidence obtained during the search must be suppressed).

[122] 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301, 10303(f)(2) (prohibiting practices and procedures which result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote because a citizen is a member of a non-English speaking “language minority group”). In covered states and political subdivisions, all ballots and voting materials must be provided in the languages of qualifying language minority groups. Id. § 10503; see OCA-Greater Houston v. Texas, 867 F.3d 604, 615 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that a Texas voting law that restricted interpretation assistance for LEP voters violated the VRA); In re Cnty. of Monterey Initiative Matter, 427 F. Supp. 2d 958, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (requiring a covered county to provide Spanish translation of an election-related petition).

[123] 52 U.S.C. § 10503(e) (defining “language minorities” and “language minority group”).

[124] Id. § 10503(c) (“Whenever any State or political subdivision subject to ... this section provides any registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process, including ballots, it shall provide them in the language of the applicable minority group as well as in the English language….”); id. § 21041(a) (Help America Vote Act). The Help America Vote Act further provides that the Election Assistance Commission “shall make grants to assist entities in carrying out research and development to improve the quality, reliability, accuracy, accessibility, affordability, and security of voting equipment, election systems, and voting technology,” and requires grant applicants to certify that the funded research and development “will take into account … the need to provide alternative language accessibility for individuals with limited proficiency in the English language (consistent with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965).” Id. § 21041(a)–(b)(1).

[125] 52 U.S.C. § 10508; see Arkansas United v. Thurston, 517 F. Supp. 3d 777, 786 (W.D. Ark. 2021) (holding that 52 U.S.C. § 10508 applies to LEP voters).

[126] See generally 52 U.S.C. § 10503.

[127] Id. § 10503(c); see also id. § 10503(b)(3)(A) (defining “voting materials”).

[128] Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2006, Determinations Under Section 203, 86 Fed. Reg. 69611, 69615 (Dec. 8, 2021).

[129] The NYVRA defines “language minorities” and “language-minority group” as “persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-204(5-a).

[130] Id. § 17-208(1)(a).

[131] Id. § 17-208(1)(b).

[132] Id. § 17-208(2).

[133] See Boureima v. New York City Hum. Res. Admin., 128 A.D.3d 532, 533 (1st Dep’t 2015) (“[D]iscrimination against limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals … constitutes discrimination based on national origin” under the N.Y.C. Human Rights Law).

[134] N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(i)–(ii) (defining “discriminatory practice” to include “refusal to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities,” and to include “refusal to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services,” unless “such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations”). 

[135] N.Y. Exec. Law § 296. 

[136] N.Y. Civ. Rts. Law § 40-c(2).

[137] N.Y. Exec. Law § 291(1)–(2) (providing that the opportunity to obtain employment; obtain an education; use places of public accommodation; and own, use, and occupy housing accommodations and public spaces without discrimination based on “age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, marital status, or disability, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right”); see id. § 292(9) (defining “place of public accommodation, resort or amusement”).

[138] N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 (also providing disparate impact liability).

[139] See Buffalo Code § 154-11 (barring discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of national origin and disability); id. § 154-13 (defining “national origin” under Fair Housing Law as “[a]ncestry, birthplace, culture, or language”); Rochester Code Ch. 63, Art. I (Human Rights); Albany Code Ch. 48, Art. III (Omnibus Human Rights Law).

[140] See N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(1). The Office of Language Access (OLA), part of the Office of General Services, is tasked with making sure agencies follow the Language Access Law. Id. § 202-a(6). OLA’s Annual Report on agency progress under the Language Access Law is available at https://ogs.ny.gov/office-language-access-annual-report-2023-2024, as required by law. See id. § 202-a(6).

[141] Id. § 202-a(1).

[142] N.Y. Office of Gen. Servs., New York State Language Access Law, Top 12 NYS non-English Languages, https://ogs.ny.gov/new-york-state-language-access-law.

[143] N.Y. Exec. Law § 202-a(5).

[144] Id. § 202-a(4)(a).

[145] Id. §§ 17-204(5-a), 17-208.

[146] N.Y. Judiciary Law § 390(1) (“Whenever any deaf of hard of hearing person is a party to a legal proceeding of any nature, or a witness or juror or prospective juror therein, the court in all instances shall appoint a qualified interpreter … to interpret the proceeding to, and the testimony of, such deaf or hard of hearing person….”); 22 NYCRR § 217.1(a) (“In all civil and criminal cases, when a court determines that a party or witness, or an interested parent or guardian of a minor party in a Family Court proceeding, is unable to understand and communicate in English to the extent that he or she cannot meaningfully participate in the court proceedings, the clerk of the court or another designated administrative officer shall schedule an interpreter at no expense…to interpret by telephone or live audiovisual means.”); see also N.Y. Civ. Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3114 (“If the witness to be examined does not understand the English language, the examining party must, at his own expense, provide a translation of all questions and answers. Where the court settles questions, it may settle them in the foreign language and in English.”).

[147] N.Y. State Unified Court Sys., Language Access and Court Interpreters, https://ww2.nycourts.gov/COURTINTERPRETER/index.shtml (citing 22 NYCRR § 217 and N.Y. Judiciary Law § 390).

[148] See N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law §§ 240(3)(10)(a-1), 252(1-a); N.Y. Family Court Act § 169.

[149] 10 NYCRR § 405.7. In addition, if you are a patient in a nursing home or other facility providing health-related services, New York State law guarantees you certain rights, including the “right to receive adequate and appropriate medical care, to be fully informed of [your] medical condition and proposed treatment … and to refuse medication and treatment after being fully informed of and understanding the consequences of such actions.” N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-c(3)(e). A facility providing health-related services is defined as a facility providing or offering “lodging, board, and physical care including, but not limited to, the recording of health information, dietary supervision and supervised hygienic services incident to such service.” Id. § 2801(4)(b). The Department of Health must provide such facilities with a written statement of patients’ rights in the 10 most common non-English languages. Id. § 2803-c(6).

[150] 10 NYCRR § 405.7; see also N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb.

[151] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2803-bb; 10 NYCRR § 405.7.

[152] N.Y. Educ. Law § 6829(2)(a); see id. § 6829(1)(a) (defining covered pharmacies as pharmacies that are part of a group of eight or more pharmacies located in New York with the same ownership); 8 NYCRR § 63.11(b)(1)–(2) (requiring brick-and-mortar and mail order pharmacies, among other things, to provide free, competent oral interpretation and translation services when counseling LEP individuals about prescription medications, when gathering information needed to maintain LEP customers’ medication profiles, and when assisting LEP customers in understanding prescription medication labels, warning labels, and other written materials).

[153] Under New York law, employers are required to provide employees a written notice when they are hired that identifies their rates of pay and the basis for the rates in English and the language the employee has identified as their primary language. N.Y. Labor Law § 195(1)(a).

[154] N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 17-a.

[155] N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(a); see also id. § 296(1-a) (prohibiting employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and other entities controlling apprentice training programs from discriminating on the basis of disability, race, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, and other protected statuses in providing training and apprenticeship opportunities); N.Y. Civ. Rts. Law § 40-c(2) (prohibiting discrimination in civil rights on the basis of disability, race, national origin, and other protected statuses); N.Y. Exec. Law § 291(1) (“The opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination because of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, marital status, or disability, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.”).

[156] See N.Y. Educ. Law § 3204(2-a)–(4); 8 NYCRR §§ 117.3, 154-2; see also 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 154-2.1(a) (“[E]ach school district shall provide English Language Learners equal access to all school programs and services offered by the school district, commensurate with the student’s age and grade level, including access to programs required for graduation.”).

[157] See, e.g., 8 NYCRR § 154-2.3(f); see also id. § 100.2(l)(4) (requiring interpretation and translation services for ELL students and parents in connection with certain student disciplinary proceedings). 

[158] See 8 NYCRR § 154-2.1(b).

[159] See, e.g., N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291(2), 292(40)(a)–(c), 296(4), and 300; N.Y. Civil Rts. Law § 40-c. 

[160] Within three days of receiving an application for a mortgage, mortgage lenders must provide applicants an informational pamphlet in their preferred language that explains their rights, including their right to receive a clear and truthful explanation of the terms and conditions of the loan. N.Y. Banking Law § 35(1). At least 90 days before commencing a foreclosure proceeding against a homeowner, mortgage lenders and loan servicers must provide the homeowner a notice warning that they could lose their home to foreclose. Real Prop. and Proceedings Action Law § 1304(1). Such notices must be provided to LEP homeowners in their native language or a language the homeowner speaks, provided the language is one of the six most common non-English languages spoken by LEP individuals in the state. Id. § 1304(5).

[161] N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1101(1), (3) (requiring social media companies to post terms of service for social media platforms in the 12 most common non-English languages spoken by LEP individuals in New York).

[162] N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2805-p.

[163] N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 460-b(1) (“No immigrant assistance service shall be provided until the customer has executed a written contract with the immigrant assistan[ce] service provider. The contract shall be in a language understood by the customer, either alone or with the assistance of an available interpreter …”).

[164] See In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecomms. Records Litig., 633 F. Supp. 2d 892, 908 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“Executive orders, in and of themselves, do not preempt state law.”).

[165] U.S. Const. art. I, § 1 (“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”); U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (“[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”).

[166] Exec. Order No. 14224, Designating English as the Official Language of the United States, 90. Fed. Reg. 11363 (Mar. 1, 2025) (revoking Exec. Order No. 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 65 Fed. Reg. 50121 (Aug. 11, 2000)).

[167] Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Memorandum: Implementation of Executive Order No. 14,224: Designating English as the Official Language of the United States of America (July 14, 2025).

[168] At this time, it is unclear how, if at all, Executive Order 14224 will impact language access for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. The July 14, 2025, DOJ memorandum acknowledges that the executive order must be implemented consistent with laws requiring effective communication with individuals with disabilities as required by the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but it remains to be seen how the federal government will interpret those laws. You can learn more about the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA in the section “Federal orders and policies” in this guide.

[169] See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (“There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.”); San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1234 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that presidential executive orders that “attempt[] to coopt Congress’s power to legislate” violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine); PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump, 766 F. Supp. 3d 535, 561 (D. Md. 2025) (same); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 588 (1952) (“The Constitution did not subject [the] law-making power of Congress to presidential … control.”). In addition, the Supreme Court has recently held that “agency interpretations of statutes—like agency interpretations of the Constitution—are not entitled to deference.” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 392 (2024) (emphasis in original).

[170] The ADA contains four relevant sections, called “titles,” that prohibit disability-based discrimination by employers, state and local governments, businesses open to the public, commercial facilities, transportation providers, and telecommunication companies. Title I of the ADA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from employment-related opportunities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111–12117; see, e.g., Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Drivers Mgmt., LLC, 142 F.4th 1122, 1127, 1130–33 (8th Cir. 2025) (trucking company violated ADA by refusing to hire a trainee because he was deaf and needed reasonable accommodations). Part A of Title II requires state and local governments to provide people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from their programs, services, and activities, including social services, public education, courts, transportation, recreation, health care, voting, emergency services, and public meetings. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134; see, e.g., Martinez v. Cuomo, 459 F. Supp. 3d 517, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (plaintiffs’ claim that the New York governor violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to conduct daily televised briefings with an in-frame ASL interpreter was likely to succeed). Part B of Title II requires public transit systems to provide accommodations that allow people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from their services. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12141–12165; see, e.g., Segal v. Metro. Council, 29 F.4th 399, 402, 405 (8th Cir. 2022) (finding triable issue of fact as to whether transit agency’s failure to announce bus route to deafblind passenger violated, among other laws, the ADA and Rehabilitation Act). Title III requires nonprofits and businesses serving the public, including restaurants, retail stores, hotels, movie theaters, private schools, doctors’ offices, hospitals, daycare centers, and private transit operators, to provide people with disabilities an equal opportunity to access the goods or services they offer. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189; see, e.g., Panarra v. HTC Corp., 598 F. Supp. 3d 73, 79 (W.D.N.Y. 2022) (deaf plaintiff stated claims under ADA and other laws against technology company that failed to caption its services); Puerner v. Hudson Spine and Pain Med. P.C., No. 17-CV-03590 (ALC), 2018 WL 4103491 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2018) (medical office’s failure to provide ASL interpretation violated the ADA). Finally, Title IV requires telecommunication companies to provide services that allow deaf and hard-of-hearing users to communicate. 47 U.S.C. § 225.

[171] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires recipients of federal financial assistance and federal executive agencies to provide language-access accommodations for people with disabilities, including deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); see, e.g., Liese v. Indian River Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334, 344 (11th Cir. 2012) (hospital’s failure to provide necessary auxiliary aids to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals would violate the Rehabilitation Act); Rothschild v. Grottenthaler, 907 F.2d 286, 288, 293 (2d Cir. 1990) (Rehabilitation Act requires public school receiving federal financial assistance to provide sign-language interpreter services at district’s expense to deaf parents of hearing children at school-initiated activities).

Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, which prohibits national-origin discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance, has been interpreted as offering similar protections for LEP individuals. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 568 (1974). The Supreme Court has limited the ability of entities other than DOJ to enforce Title VI when challenging practices based on discriminatory impact. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280, 286, 293 (2001). Courts have continued to apply Title VI to language-based discrimination, however. See T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 223 F. Supp. 3d 321, 335 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (“[N]umerous federal courts have found that language[-]based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination prohibited by Title VI.”) (collecting cases); United States v. Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1079 (D. Ariz. 2012) (“[L]ongstanding case law, federal regulations and agency interpretation of those regulations hold language-based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination under Title VI.”).

[172] This guide uses the term “English language learner” instead of “limited English proficient” when referring to students. The EEOA prohibits the denial of “equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her … national origin,” including through the failure of “an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.” 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f); see Issa v. Sch. Dist. of Lancaster, 847 F.3d 121, 140 (3d Cir. 2017) (ELL students were likely to prevail on EEOA claim against school district that provided ELL students an inferior education); Methelus v. Sch. Bd. of Collier Cnty., Fla., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1277 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (allegation that district’s refusal to enroll ELL students in public school and referral of those students to a noncredit adult program stated claim under EEOA); New York by Schneiderman v. Utica City Sch. Dist., 177 F. Supp. 3d 739, 753 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (allegation that district diverted ELL students to inferior alternative education programs stated claim under EEOA); T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 223 F. Supp. 3d 321, 335 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (allegation that district failed to provide adequate translation services to ELL students with disabilities stated claim under EEOA).

[173] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, 1412(a)(1)(A); Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 402–03 (2017) (The IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”). The IDEA’s principal language-access protections pertain to deaf and hard-of-hearing students, but the act also addresses language access for ELL students and parents. For instance, the IDEA conditions state eligibility for grants for special education and related services for children with disabilities on the submission of “a plan that provides assurances … that the State has in effect policies and procedures to ensure,” among other things, “that testing and evaluation materials and procedures utilized for the purposes of evaluation and placement of children with disabilities for services … shall be provided and administered in the child’s native language or mode of communication, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(6)(B). The IDEA also includes various procedural safeguards that require notifications to be provided to parents in their native language, among other protections. Id. §§ 1415(B)(4), 1439(a)(7).

[174] For instance, the Every Student Succeeds Act, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, contains numerous provisions providing for language access, including those addressing (1) academic improvements generally, see 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301–6578; (2) language instruction for ELL and immigrant students, see id. §§ 6801–7014; and (3) education of indigenous students in non-English languages, see id. §§ 7401–7546; see also id. § 3420 (establishing the Office of English Language Acquisition within the Department of Education and requiring its director to “coordinate the administration of bilingual education programs by the Department”).

[175] 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301, 10303(f)(2) (prohibiting practices and procedures which result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote because a citizen is a member of a non-English speaking “language minority group”). In covered states and political subdivisions, all ballots and voting materials must be provided in the languages of qualifying language minority groups. Id. § 10503; see OCA-Greater Houston v. Texas, 867 F.3d 604, 615 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that a Texas voting law that restricted interpretation assistance for LEP voters violated the Voting Rights Act); In re Cnty. of Monterey Initiative Matter, 427 F. Supp. 2d 958, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (requiring a covered county to provide Spanish translation of an election-related petition).

[176] 52 U.S.C. § 10310(c)(3) (“The term ‘language minorities’ or ‘language minority group’ means persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.”).

[177] Id. § 10508 (“Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter's union.”); see Arkansas United v. Thurston, 517 F. Supp. 3d 777, 786 (W.D. Ark. 2021) (holding that 52 U.S.C. § 10508 applies to LEP voters).

[178] 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a) (“[A]n individual shall not … be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance, including credits, subsidies, or contracts of insurance, or under any program or activity that is administered by an Executive Agency …”); see Saldana v. Cook Cnty. Health & Hosps. Sys., No. 19 CV 6178, 2024 WL 4792113, at *9–10 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2024) (finding “sufficient evidence to support [the] conclusion” that hospital violated the ACA by failing to provide a deaf patient with an in-person interpreter during treatment).

[179] Whether language-based discrimination constitutes discrimination because of national origin or another protected characteristic, such as race, depends on the facts and law at issue and cannot be taken for granted. Where the facts and circumstances of a particular denial of language-access accommodations suggest that language-based discrimination may be a proxy for national-origin- or race-based discrimination, courts may find that laws prohibiting the latter two forms of discrimination apply. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 354 (1991) (“It may be, for certain ethnic groups and in some communities, that proficiency in a particular language, like skin color, should be treated as a surrogate for race under an equal protection analysis.”); Desrosiers v. Summit Sec. Servs., Inc., No. 21-CV-10941 (JPO), 2022 WL 13808524, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2022) (“[E]vidence of language discrimination may permit a jury finding of national origin or race discrimination, such as when it is accompanied by evidence more directly proving discrimination.” (cleaned up); CNY Fair Hous., Inc. v. Swiss Vill., LLC, No. 521CV1217MADML, 2022 WL 2643573, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. July 8, 2022) (collecting cases indicating that language-based discrimination may, under some circumstances, be used as evidence of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin); Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Wisconsin Plastics, Inc., 186 F. Supp. 3d 945, 948 (E.D. Wis. 2016) (“It is true that language ability per se is not the legal equivalent to a protected class like race or national origin, but language can sometimes serve as a proxy, or stalking horse, for discrimination against a protected class.”); Rivera v. NIBCO, 701 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1141 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“Language-based discrimination is often closely aligned with national origin discrimination …”). Although this guide includes references to laws that prohibit national-origin discrimination throughout, readers should conduct their own legal analysis on a case-by-case basis to determine whether any given law prohibiting national-origin discrimination offers language-access protections.

[180] 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)–(b); see Basta v. Novant Health Inc., 56 F.4th 307, 318 (4th Cir. 2022) (deaf husband stated Rehabilitation Act claim against hospital that denied him an ASL interpreter and provided an ineffective auxiliary device while he was serving as his wife’s medical proxy during her delivery of their child).

[181] 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12182; see Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 275–75 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding issue of material fact as to whether a hospital’s failure to provide ASL interpreter for deaf patient and patient’s wife, forcing their children to act as interpreters, violated the Rehabilitation Act and other laws).

[182] 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604­–06 (prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, in residential real estate-related transactions, and in the provision of brokerage services on the basis of national origin and disability, among other protected characteristics); see CNY Fair Hous., Inc. v. Swiss Vill., LLC, No. 521CV1217MADML, 2022 WL 2643573, at *6–8 (N.D.N.Y. July 8, 2022) (plaintiffs stated FHA claims against housing provider whose policy requiring an English-language speaker to live in the home may have been used as a proxy for national-origin discrimination); Fair Hous. Just. Ctr., v. Allure Rehab. Servs. LLC, No. 15 CV 6336, 2017 WL 4297237, at *5–6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2017) (plaintiff stated FHA claim against nursing homes and assisted living facilities that refused to provide ASL interpreters to deaf residents); Cabrera v. Alvarez, 977 F. Supp. 2d 969, 977 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (Spanish-speaking plaintiffs stated FHA claim based on national origin against city housing authority whose employees denied their request for an interpreter and made hostile comments about their limited English proficiency).

[183] When the VA determines that one of its medical facilities serves a “substantial number of veterans with limited English-speaking ability,” the VA “shall establish and implement procedures … to ensure the identification of sufficient numbers of individuals on [the] facility's staff who are fluent in both the language most appropriate to such veterans and in English and whose responsibilities shall include providing guidance to such veterans and to appropriate Department staff members with respect to cultural sensitivities and bridging linguistic and cultural differences.” 38 U.S.C. § 8110(b). “In areas where a significant number of eligible veterans and eligible dependents speak a language other than English as their principal language,” the VA must, to the maximum extent feasible, provide outreach services to veterans “in the principal language of such persons.” Id. § 6303(a).

[184] 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (“No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”); see Searls v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 158 F. Supp. 3d 427, 430, 437 (D. Md. 2016) (hospital violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by rescinding a deaf nurse’s job offer after the nurse requested a full-time ASL interpreter, which was a reasonable accommodation).

[185] For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act also broadly prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (defining an unlawful employment practice to include failing or refusing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against an individual with respect to the terms, conditions, compensation, or privileges of employment, or limiting, segregating, or classifying employees or applicants for employment in a way that would deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin). The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (SSA) provides that “[n]o person in any State shall on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under or denied employment in connection with any programs or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this chapter.” 34 U.S.C. § 10228(c). Civil actions may be brought under the SSA by individuals who have exhausted administrative remedies, id. § 10228(c)(4)(A)–(B), and at least one court has noted that the SSA applies to language-access claims, see Ling v. State, 288 Ga. 299, 302 (2010). The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) provides that “[n]o individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with” any program or activity that receives funding under the act on the basis of national origin, race, color, disability, age, or sex. 29 U.S.C. § 3248(a)(1)–(2). However, the WIOA defines national-origin discrimination in connection with Title VI, and there is no private right of action under the WIOA, which is enforced by the U.S. Secretary of Labor and Attorney General. Guida v. W. Virginia Dep’t of Com., No. 5:23-CV-359, 2024 WL 2870853, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. May 29, 2024); Owens v. Freedom Roads Holding Co. LLC, No. CV-17-1117-PHX-JZB, 2017 WL 11714023, at *6 (D. Ariz. July 19, 2017).

[186] See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 9513(a)(1)(C) (requiring the Under Secretary of Commerce for Minority Business Development to “provide outreach, educational services, and technical assistance in, at a minimum, the 5 most commonly spoken languages in the United States to ensure that limited English proficient individuals receive culturally and linguistically appropriate access to the services and information provided by the [Minority Business Development] Agency”); 42 U.S.C. § 12651d(b)(19) (providing that AmeriCorp’s Chief Executive Officer’s duties include, “where practicable, provid[ing] application materials in languages other than English for individuals with limited English proficiency who wish to participate in a national service program”).

[187] The Court Interpreters Act requires an interpreter if a party or witness “speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language” or “suffers from a hearing impairment … so as to inhibit such party’s comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel or the presiding judicial officer, or so as to inhibit such witness’ comprehension of questions and the presentation of such testimony.” 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1). “[T]he general standard for the adequate translation of trial proceedings requires continuous word for word translation of everything relating to the trial a defendant conversant in English would be privy to hear.” United States v. Joshi, 896 F.2d 1303, 1309 (11th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(d) further provides that a “court may appoint an interpreter of its choosing; fix reasonable compensation to be paid from funds provided by law or by one or more parties; and tax the compensation as costs” when taking a witness’s testimony.

[188] 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1).

[189] 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(1)(B).

[190] 42 U.S.C. § 5151(a). This particular provision of the Stafford Act—which governs federal disaster response activities—imposes an affirmative duty on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and provides individuals who have been subject to discrimination after a major disaster or emergency with a private right of action against FEMA. Laday v. Ramada Plaza Hotel LaGuardia, No. 07-CV-0450, 2007 WL 526613, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2007). The burden of showing that FEMA has discriminated against an applicant for aid lies with the individual challenging an action by FEMA. Id.

[191] 42 U.S.C. § 5151(a).

[192] Id. § 5196f(a).

[193] Id.

[194] 6 U.S.C. § 321o(b)(3). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets regulations for wireless carriers to support emergency alerts sent directly to cell phones, known as Wireless Emergency Alerts. Since November 2018, the FCC has required wireless carriers to support Spanish-language Wireless Emergency Alerts. 47 C.F.R. § 10.480. After years of advocacy by Attorney General Letitia James and a November 2025 demand letter issued by a multistate coalition led by Attorney General James, the FCC published a rule that requires wireless carriers to support Wireless Emergency Alerts in English, ASL, and 13 other languages by June 12, 2028. FCC, Wireless Emergency Alerts and the Emergency Alert System Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 2317–2318 (Jan. 20, 2026) (to be codified at 47 C.F.R. pt. 10); see also OAG, Att’y Gen. James Celebrates Expansion of Multilingual Emergency Alerts, Jan. 21, 2026, https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-celebrates-expansion-multilingual-emergency-alerts. Under the rule, wireless carriers will be required to support Wireless Emergency Alerts in Arabic, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), French, German, Haitian Creole, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, as well as ASL and English.

[195] 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12141(2), 12181(1), 12182.

[196] See id. § 12141(2); Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways, 662 F.3d 593, (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing a claim under the ADA against an air carrier on the grounds that transportation by aircraft is not included in the definition of public transportation in the statute).

[197] 49 U.S.C. § 41705(a). Along with several other circuit courts, the Second Circuit has held that the Air Carriers Access Act (ACAA) does not provide a private right of action to aggrieved passengers. See Lopez, 662 F.3d at 597. Instead, an aggrieved passenger must file a written complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which is generally required to investigate complaints based on “reasonable grounds.” Id.; 49 U.S.C. § 46101(a)(1). Whether DOT will enforce the ACAA’s anti-discrimination requirements may depend on the federal administration in power. Note that, while no private right of action exists to enforce the ACAA, aggrieved passengers have limited recourse in the courts after an administrative decision by DOT has been issued. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) (permitting a person with a “substantial interest” in an order issued by DOT to seek review of the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit or in the circuit in which the person resides). To determine if an individual is a person with a substantial interest, courts have generally applied the same standards used when considering if a plaintiff has Article III standing. See Illinois Dept. of Transp. v. Hinson, 122 F.3d 370, 371–72 (7th Cir. 1997) (defining a substantial interest under § 46110(a) as “an interest in protection against injury, where ‘injury’ connotes (1) a palpable, ideally a measurable harm, (2) that is reasonably likely to be prevented, alleviated, or cured by the lawsuit, (3) to a concrete, individual, nonideological, in short weighty, interest”); Competitive Enter. Inst. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 863 F.3d 911, 914 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (relying on Article III standing case law to determine that the plaintiff in this case, a user of e-cigarettes, had standing to challenge a DOT rule banning their use on airplanes).

The Fly America Act similarly prohibits domestic and foreign air carriers from discriminating on the basis of national origin, among other protected characteristics. 49 U.S.C. § 40127(a)–(b). As with the ACAA, discussed above, “most federal courts confronted with the issue have concluded that no private right of action exists” under the FAA’s antidiscrimination provisions. Shebley v. United Cont’l Holdings, Inc., 357 F. Supp. 3d 684, 690 (N.D. Ill. 2019); see Shin v. Am. Airlines Grp., Inc., No. 17-CV-2234-ARR-JO, 2017 WL 3316129, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017), aff’d sub nom. Shin v. Am. Airline, Inc., 726 F. App’x 89 (2d Cir. 2018); James v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 247 F. Supp. 3d 297, 307 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). “Nonetheless, some district courts at least have hinted otherwise.” Shebley, 357 F. Supp. 3d at 690–91 (citing Qayyum v. U.S. Airways, Inc., No. 3:08-0996, 2008 WL 4879401, at *1 n.1 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 12, 2008); Williams v. Midwest Airlines, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 993, 996 (E.D. Wis. 2004); Alasady v. Nw. Airlines Corp., No. Civ. 02-3669(RHK/AJB), 2003 WL 1565944, at *10 n.13 (D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2003)).

[198] See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(5) (requiring that safety and health information on pesticide product labels be translated into Spanish); 42 U.S.C. § 3020e-1(h) (requiring the Assistant Secretary for Aging to establish and administer a national telephone hotline that provides information to LEP individuals seeking “outreach, information, counseling, referral, and other assistance regarding pension and other retirement benefits, and rights related to such benefits”).