Transcript Legal Obligations of the Juvenile Justice System for

Legal Obligations of the
Juvenile Justice System
for Limited English
Proficient Youth
Sam Jammal
Legislative Staff Attorney
MALDEF
Rights & Obligations for LEP
Juveniles

Two Bodies of Law to Consider:
 Legal
Protections and Obligations
 Educational
Rights for Limited English Proficient
(LEP) Students in the Juvenile Justice System
Legal Protections & Obligations

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Lao v. Nichols

Executive Order No. 13166

Dept. of Justice Implementation of Executive Order
No. 13166
Civil Rights Act of 1964

Section 601 provides that no
person shall “on the ground
of race, color, or national
origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial
assistance."

Section 602 authorizes and
directs federal agencies that
are empowered to extend
federal financial assistance to
any program or activity "to
effectuate the provisions of
[section 601] by issuing rules,
regulations, or orders of
general applicability."
Lao v. Nichols

United States Supreme Court decision from 1974

Holding: San Francisco school district required to
provide linguistically appropriate accommodations for
LEP persons

Language is often used as a proxy for national origin
discrimination, which is prohibited under the Civil
Rights Act of 1964
Executive Order No. 13166

Clinton Administration
 Signed
by President Clinton in August 2000
 Requires
federal agencies to examine the services they
provide to LEP persons and implement a system that
provides meaningful access
 Federal
Agencies must ensure recipients of federal funds
provide meaningful access to LEP applicants and
beneficiaries

Recipients include law enforcement, courts and corrections agencies
Executive Order No. 13166

Bush Administration

Affirmed Clinton Administration Order in 2002

Dept. of Justice (DOJ) has provided guidance for recipients of DOJ
funds and other agencies in order to comply with the Executive Order

Four-step Balancing Test for Meaningful Access




Number of LEP persons eligible to be served or encountered
Frequency of contact with LEP persons
Nature and importance of the program to LEP persons
Resources available, including costs of providing particular services for LEP
persons
Meaningful Access for LEPs in the
Juvenile Justice System

Meaningful access requirements apply to all LEP persons whether they be adult
inmates, detainees, juveniles or persons involved in community corrections programs.

When applying the four factors, recipients encountering juveniles should take into
account that certain programs or activities may be even more critical and difficult to
access for juveniles than they would be for adults.

LEP persons do not have equitable access to services or benefits if they are charged a
fee for language assistance services

Language assistance services are a high priority whenever a LEP person receives
instructions on matters affecting rights or responsibilities, such as Miranda warnings, or
whenever a LEP person needs assistance related to personal safety or medical care
DOJ Bureau of Prisons

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) administers and maintains correctional
facilities for people placed in U.S. custody

BOP provides Spanish-language program statements,
orientations, statement of rules and procedures, and other
documents because LEP inmates who speak Spanish represent
over 5% of the total inmate prison population

For smaller LEP communities, oral and written communications
in their native language are provided on ad hoc basis
Educational Rights

Every student has a right to a quality education
regardless of whether they are in an alternative
educational setting

Quality alternative settings for juveniles are a means of
rehabilitation and prevention of further juvenile
delinquency

Judicial and Statutory Protections
Judicial Protections for LEP
Students

Mendez v. Westminster- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (1947)


Brown v. Board of Education- United States Supreme Court (1954)


Holding: Segregation of Mexican and Mexican American students into separate
“Mexican” schools was unconstitutional
Holding: State laws that segregated black and white students are unconstitutional
and deny black children equal educational opportunities
Lao v. Nichols- United States Supreme Court (1974)

Holding: School districts in this country are required to take the necessary
actions in order to provide students who do not speak English as their first
language the ability to overcome the educational barriers associated with not being
able to properly comprehend what is being taught to them
Judicial Protections for LEP
Students (Cont.)

Castañeda v. Pickard- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (1981)

Holding: Three Part Test for Bilingual Education Programs under the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act




The bilingual education program must be “based on sound educational theory.
The program must be “implemented effectively with resources for personnel,
instructional materials, and space.”
After a trial period, the program must be proven effective in overcoming language
barriers/handicaps.
Alexander v. Sandoval- United States Supreme Court (2001)

Holding: A regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
does not include a private right of action to allow private lawsuits based on
evidence of disparate impact, as policies with a disparate impact on minorities are
presumed to be unintentional discrimination
Statutory Protections for LEP
Students

Bilingual Education Act of 1968




Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974




Intended to provide funding for programs for LEP students
Provided school districts the opportunity to provide bilingual education without violating segregation
laws
Merged in to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Prohibited discrimination against faculty, staff and students, including racial segregation of students, and
requires school districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation
Stated that language barriers must be overcome by instructional programming
Castañeda provided guidance on quality bilingual educational programs
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001



Established accountability measures for LEP students under Title III
Made schools responsible for LEP students regardless of whether these students are in regular or
alternative school settings
Required test scores for LEP students to be included in overall district scores
Current Challenge

Many jurisdictions are still not receiving or
seeking adequate technical assistance to
implement integrated system changes to assist
LEP youth