Understanding is a Right, Not a Privilege.
A right that is not protected will disappear. A law that is not enforced is merely a suggestion.
A right that is not protected will disappear. A law that is not enforced is merely a suggestion.
Language access is a civil right. Justice cannot be served when a person cannot understand the proceedings against them. Language Access Watch (LAW) is a civil rights project from Americans Against Language Barriers and the American Deaf and Limited English Council that trains and deploys volunteer Observers to ensure courts are held accountable to the law.
Many legally protected rights exist only on paper. Enforcement of language access laws depends on the systematic observation and documentation of violations. LAW provides the oversight required to turn legal requirements into reality and hold institutions accountable.
Principle
Lady Justice is blind to represent impartiality. In our adaption, Lady Justice raises an ancient symbolic hand gesture known as Abhaya Mudra, to say: "fear stops here and you are safe to be heard." Her covered mouth promises justice is not bound to one language, so the scales will weigh your case, not your fluency or disability.
Language access is guaranteed by constitutional due process and equal protection rights. Multiple federal laws and Supreme Court precedent make interpreter services legally required, not optional.
The right to an interpreter is rooted in the Constitution and affirmed by modern civil rights law.
The Due Process Clause requires meaningful participation in legal proceedings. Courts have consistently held this demands qualified interpretation to ensure a defendant can understand charges, consult counsel, and comprehend orders.
The Equal Protection Clause ensures that language barriers do not create a separate, inferior class of justice. Meaningful access to interpretation prevents de facto discrimination based on national origin.
This act prohibits discrimination based on national origin in any program receiving federal funds, including state and local courts. This establishes the initial framework for language access as a civil right.
The Supreme Court affirms that failing to provide language assistance is a form of national origin discrimination. This landmark case solidifies the legal requirement for courts to provide interpreters.
The ADA mandates "effective communication" for individuals with disabilities, requiring qualified sign language interpreters in public settings like courtrooms, and prohibits using family members for interpretation.
The following examples illustrate the practical application of these legal principles.
Constitutional Compliance
A certified or otherwise qualified professional, vetted for proficiency and knowledge of legal terminology, is provided.
Due Process Violation
An untrained bilingual staff member, law clerk, or other court personnel is used as an ad hoc interpreter.
Constitutional Compliance
A neutral third-party interpreter with no connection to the case or participants is provided to ensure unbiased communication.
Due Process Violation
A family member, friend, or other individual with a potential conflict of interest is permitted to interpret, compromising neutrality.
Constitutional Compliance
A qualified American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter is provided for an individual whose primary language is ASL.
Due Process Violation
An individual is required to rely on inadequate auxiliary aids, such as written notes or captions, which do not provide equivalent access.
Constitutional Compliance
The court takes affirmative and reasonable steps to secure a qualified interpreter when a language need is identified.
Due Process Violation
An individual is pressured to proceed in English to promote judicial efficiency, resulting in a coerced waiver of their right.
This is a non-exhaustive list of potential violations.
Our Observers are trained to document specific, consequential violations of language access rights. The failure to provide meaningful access can take many forms, including:
Proceeding without a qualified interpreter when a need is identified.
Using ad hoc staff, family, or others without proper qualifications.
Summarizing or omitting statements instead of full, accurate interpretation.
Pressuring individuals to proceed in English or without proper access.
Failing to ensure equivalent access for Deaf or LEP individuals.
Preventing participation or understanding due to language barriers.
Not providing critical forms or orders in an accessible language.
Billing parties for interpreters when law requires them to be free.
Relying on unvetted tools in place of qualified human interpreters.
This is a non-exhaustive list of the many ways language access laws can be violated.
Our methodology is designed for objectivity, accuracy, and impact.
Volunteers complete 5 hours of intensive training on civil rights law, observation techniques, and ethics. A rigorous screening exam must be passed with a 95% or higher score to become a qualified Courtroom Observer.
Observers attend public court hearings in pairs, but work independently to document their findings. They collect in-depth, evidence-based data on whether meaningful language access was provided.
The data is compiled and analyzed by the Advisory Board to identify systemic violations. Corrective actions may include filing formal complaints with the Department of Justice, initiating legal challenges, and media advocacy.
Volunteers complete 5 hours of intensive training on civil rights law, observation techniques, and ethics. A rigorous screening exam must be passed with a 95% or higher score to become a qualified Courtroom Observer.
Observers attend public court hearings in pairs, but work independently to document their findings. They collect in-depth, evidence-based data on whether meaningful language access was provided.
The data is compiled and analyzed by the Advisory Board to identify systemic violations. Corrective actions may include filing formal complaints with the Department of Justice, initiating legal challenges, and media advocacy.
We are seeking principled, objective volunteers to serve as the eyes and ears of justice. This is a vital, non-partisan role for anyone committed to due process and civil rights.
Phased Program Launch
Our program is launching in stages to ensure a high standard of quality. The application process is open now for all locations.
We encourage applicants from all locations, as expanding to other regions is a critical part of our mission. More cities for in-person observation will be added in the future.
10,000
Total observation hours
This commitment ensures we have sufficient data to identify patterns and demand systemic change.
To ensure the integrity of our data and the safety of our volunteers, all Observers must meet the following requirements and strictly adhere to our Rules of Conduct.
Observers shall remain impartial and objective at all times, documenting factual events without personal bias or judgment.
Observers shall adhere to all courtroom etiquette, including the required dress code and rules against recording, and must comply with any lawful instruction from court staff.
The role of an Observer is strictly limited to observation and documentation. No attempt shall be made to interact with case participants or interfere with court proceedings.
Observers shall handle all collected data with strict confidentiality and submit reports accurately and promptly through official channels.
This is an overview of the official Rules of Conduct, which will be covered in-depth during volunteer training.
Your time and integrity can help protect civil rights. Apply to become a Courtroom Observer. Training is free, online, and thorough.
While we will work to accommodate various schedules, most opportunities will be during daytime business hours, when court is in session.
Your safety and adherence to court rules are paramount. We only assign Observers to hearings that have been verified as open to the public. However, if a judge or court officer asks you to leave, you must comply immediately and politely without argument. Your role is to observe, not intervene. Afterward, you will document the incident in your report, noting who asked you to leave and the reason they provided. This information is valuable data for us.
Your observations are the foundation of our advocacy. Twice a year, we hold a strategic meeting with our advisory board and all qualified Observers. In these meetings, we analyze the collected data to identify patterns of non-compliance. Based on these findings, we decide on a course of action, which may include: direct communication with court administrators, filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for more data, submitting formal reports to the Department of Justice, publishing our findings, and briefing local representatives.
Absolutely no legal background is required. The training is specifically designed for individuals from all walks of life. It does not teach you how to be a lawyer; it teaches you how to be an objective and accurate Observer. We focus on the practical skills you need: understanding the specific violations to look for, recognizing the difference between proper and improper procedure, and filling out the data collection forms accurately and without bias.
While an individual can report a violation, they often face significant barriers. An unrepresented defendant may not know their rights, may fear retaliation, or may be too overwhelmed by their case to file a complaint. Their report can be dismissed as a one-off incident or subjective complaint. Our method provides systematic, third-party, data-driven evidence of violations. A report based on dozens of objective observations is far more powerful than a single complaint. It demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance that is difficult for institutions to ignore and provides the credible evidence needed for agencies like the Department of Justice to launch an investigation.