Coercive Assimilation: The Constitutionality of Enforcing English Signage
“What makes America exceptional,” as former President Barack Obama once said, “are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on Earth.” [1] Home to 66.6 million residents who do not speak English as their native language, the United States prides itself on its diversity and multiculturalism. [2] There are dozens of U.S. cities where the majority of residents speak a non-English language at home, and in places such as Laredo, Texas and Hiahlea, Florida, this majority is resounding: 92 percent and 95 percent, respectively. [3] As more and more minority-owned businesses pop up in immigrant communities like Little Italy and Chinatown, the debate over bilingual signage—whether signs must always include English translations—has begun to proliferate. It may seem like a sensible choice to mandate that all signage in America be in English. After all, English is the most spoken language in the country, and all signage should be accessible to the majority. Upon further examination, however, it is clear that forcing minority-owned businesses to offer English signage blurs the boundary between helping the majority and unconstitutionally sanctioning forced assimilation.
Although the United States has no official language, over twenty-two states and forty municipalities have adopted various forms of legislation known as “official English laws,” which prohibit or restrict foreign language use in some capacity. [4] A prime example of this is an “official English” ordinance passed in Pomona, California in 1980. As the Korean-American population in the area grew, Pomona began to see more businesses with signs in Korean only. The city responded with legislation mandating that all signage displaying foreign characters include an English translation of equal font size. [5]
This ordinance was later challenged in Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona (1989). [6] Alleging that the ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Asian American Business Group argued that the regulation of signage was a regulation on cultural expression and national origin, as well as a violation of free speech. The group also contended that the font size rule was arbitrary and placed a needless burden on business owners to comply. [7]
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California eventually overturned Pomona’s ordinance on the grounds that it violated the tenets of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and right to association, as well as the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [8] That the court found the ordinance’s specifications to be arbitrary under the Due Process Clause is especially notable, as it was pointed out that the defendant never took issue with other foreign language signage, such as signs on Italian or French restaurants. Overturning the ordinance as a result of the Due Process Clause exposed the ordinance for what it really was— a reflection of anti-immigrant sentiment in California, particularly against non-white immigrants.
The ruling in Asian American Business Group protects ethnic business-owners by establishing the unconstitutionality of “official English” laws. Within a decade of the decision in Asian American Business Group, Bergen County, a similar New Jersey ordinance was struck down under the same rationale used in Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona. [9] All neighboring towns in New Jersey that had similar signage regulations repealed their laws out of fear of further lawsuits. [10]
Despite the clear precedent established by the Pomona City and New Jersey cases, there still exist many “English only” laws. The most stringent of these laws, Article XXVIII of the Arizona state constitution, was challenged in Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English (1997). [11] In 1987, a group called Arizonans for Official English (AOE) facilitated the passage of a law calling for all aspects of government and political subdivisions to be conducted solely in English. [12] An Arizona state government employee, Maria F. Kelly Yniguez, filed a lawsuit challenging this state provision. [13] In Yniguez, both the District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the English-only provision of Arizona’s law was unconstitutional and that Yniguez was entitled to damages from the state. However, by the time the case was taken on by the Supreme Court for review, Yniguez had resigned from her government job and was thus no longer able to serve as the case’s plaintiff. Because of Yniguez’s resignation, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the dispute was moot and ultimately did not opine on the constitutionality of Arizona’s English-only law. [14] This technicality has enabled states to continue enforcing English as their official language.
Although the United States is a diverse country with no official language, “official English laws” undermine its multinational identity. Requiring English signage in the United States suggests that the immigrant minority must conform and assimilate to the majority at the expense of autonomous cultural expression. Almost always, official English laws follow patterns of increased immigration to certain areas and then subsequent anti-immigrant sentiments among area natives. [15] Laws that impose English as the official language of the United States, as with any legislation that attempts to create a monolithic American way of being, threaten the robust multiculturalism at the very core of the American national identity.
[1] Barack Obama, Transcript of President Obama’s Election Night Speech, The New York Times (2012), online at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/us/politics/transcript-of-president-obamas-election-night-speech.html (visited August 11, 2020).
[2] Karen Ziegler and Steven A. Camarota, Almost Half Speak A Foreign Language In America's Largest Cities, Center for Immigration Studies (2018), online at https://cis.org/Report/Almost-Half-Speak-Foreign-Language-Americas-Largest-Cities (visited July 16, 2020).
[3] id
[4] Cecilia Wong, "Language Is Speech: The Illegitimacy of Official English after Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English," 30 U.C. Davis Law Review, 277-310.
[5] Grace A. Pasigan, "Sign Language: Colonialism and the Battle over Text," 17 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal 625-650 (1997).
[6] Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona, 716 F. Supp. 1328 (C.D. Cal. 1989).
[7] id
[8] id
[9] Pasigan, "Sign Language,” 625-650
[10] 2 Groups Ask Repeal Of Sign Ordinance, Los Angeles Times (2020), online at https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-09-08-me-1787-story.html (visited August 3, 2020).
[11] Wong, "Language Is Speech,” 277-310
[12] Arizona Constitution Art. XXVIII § 1
[13] Wong, "Language Is Speech,” 277-310
[14] Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, Oyez, online at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-974 (visited August 22, 2020).
[15] Hill, “Watch Your Language,” 669.