According to the American Community Survey Report of 2011, 22.4 percent of the U.S. population spoke English “not well” or “not at all.” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 13166, and numerous state laws and regulations require language services to ensure meaningful access to programs and activities for these individuals. Providing this assistance in judicial settings is particularly important for victims, defendants, civil litigants, and witnesses; and requires the services of well-trained and highly skilled professional interpreters and translators.
The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) was founded in 1978 in order to build professionalism among interpreters and translators working in the courts and other legal and law-enforcement settings, to support language access to the courts, and to educate the public about the need for qualified and well-trained professional judiciary interpreters and translators.
In furtherance of its purpose, NAJIT has spoken out on many issues, including the following:
March 11, 2021 – The NAJIT Advocacy committee wrote a letter to the Supervising Judge at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, in response to the Protocols and Guidelines for Conducting In-Person Civil Jury Trials in City Hall During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
March 8, 2021 – The NAJIT Board has written a letter urging all public health officials as well as court administrators who employ and contract with interpreters to explicitly include on-site court interpreters among the listed groups of personnel for Phase 1 vaccinations.
March 5, 2021 – A recent news report identified a subcontractor working as a translator for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in California who was arrested for disclosing confidential information about an ongoing DEA investigation. In response to this report, the NAJIT Board of Directors has sent official letters to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the DEA, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California stating our position against the practice of contracting language services through low-bidding companies that employ interpreters and translators who do not have the proper qualifications and experience.
February 18, 2021 – The NAJIT Board of Directors drafted a statement against reductions in minimum hours for remote interpreting.
February 16, 2021 – The NAJIT Board of Directors has drafted and submitted comments in response to the California Judicial Council’s Recommended Guidelines and Minimum Specifications for Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) for Spoken Language Interpreted Events. These guidelines are proposed as both a current and post-pandemic guideline for providing remote interpreting for court proceedings.
February 10, 2021 – The NAJIT Board of Directors sent a call to action to courts regarding the importance of interpreter safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.
December 8, 2020 – The NAJIT Board of Directors wrote a letter to clarify some misconceptions that may exist regarding the federal court interpreter certification.
October 30, 2020 – The Kansas Supreme Court opened proposed Rule 1705 for public comment. The proposed rule would require court interpreters to undergo an orientation in order to be eligible to interpret in the Kansas State Courts. The NAJIT Board of Directors submitted a letter in favor of the orientation program, but only as a first step in what should be a truly robust process of judiciary interpreters’ competency assessment. NAJIT argued in favor of a certification program in Kansas in which the proposed orientation is only one element. The NAJIT Advocacy Committee also submitted a separate letter to the Kansas Supreme Court, in which they congratulated the Court for this proposed step towards a “comprehensive language access program,” but also advised that orientation alone cannot ensure the delivery of professional court interpreting services in accordance with the Kansas Code of Professional Responsibility for Court Interpreters. Read the comments submitted by the Board of Directors here. Read the comments submitted by the advocacy committee here.
May 18, 2020 – Protecting Civil Rights While Responding to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). A statement by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Eric S. Dreiband.
April 29, 2020 – Joint letter from the Advocacy and Bench and Bar Committees regarding proper protocols for remote interpreting during the COVID-19 pandemic.
June 26,2019 – NAJIT writes a letter to California legislators supporting an exemption for freelance interpreters be added to bill AB5.
May 14,2019 – NAJIT writes letter to Texas legislators in opposition of proposed Bills SB 2176 and HB 3627.
May 13,2019 – Justice department and Louisiana supreme court reach agreement to provide language assistance for individuals not proficient in English.
May 1,2019 – After ten years, the newly revised NAJIT Position Paper on Transcription/Translation is now available. The position paper is for the benefit of both the users of transcription/translation services and the practitioners who provide them, addressing topics such as the qualifications required to do this type of specialized work, quality assurance, and the role of the transcription/translation expert as expert witness. A useful tool that examines this hybrid specialization from both the theoretical and practical perspectives. Review all of NAJIT’s position papers here.
March 15, 2019 – Information on language access and Title VI provided by the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to the Houston Interpreters and Translators Association (HITA) can be found here.
September 14, 2018 – NAJIT quoted in recent article title “Lost in Legal Translation” published by Best Lawyers. Read the entire article here.
July 26, 2018 – NAJIT releases a statement on the perils of subpoenaing an interpreter to testify about the substance of an assignment. Read the statement here.
June 20, 2018 – Executive Director, Rob Cruz, represented NAJIT by addressing the Georgia Commission on Interpreters on June 20th, 2018 as part of their continuing efforts to promote high standards regarding language access. Mr. Cruz spoke on key aspects of the profession such as attracting more potential interpreters and the importance of continuing education requirements. Click here for more details on the event.
January 23, 2018 – Court voids confession, urges more use of interpreters by law enforcement. Read the full decision of the NJ Appellate Court.
November 6, 2017 – Two papers from the American Translators Association (ATA). The first, Inaccuracies in Prevailing Wages Rate Determinations for Translators and Interpreters, describes how the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the hourly rate for translators and Interpreters and the negative impact this has on compensation. The second, Language Services Procurement: The Need for the Best Value Approach, describes two approaches used by the federal government to contract for services, and recommends use of the “Best Value Approach” as being more appropriate for language services.
May 15, 2017 – NAJIT Advocacy Priorities. A resource prepared by our Advocacy Committee and designed by our prior Chair about NAJIT’s advocacy priorities and some important figures regarding our association’s members.
April 24, 2017 – Advocacy 101 for Interpreters and Translators. A resource prepared by NAJIT’s Advocacy Committee on what advocacy is, its importance, and how to advocate for our profession.
February 25, 2017 –NAJIT Advocacy Day Survey Results
May 2016 – Red T Letter
March 5, 2016 – T & I Descriptions (Updated 5.15.17)
November 25, 2015 – Executive Office of Immigration Review
April 25, 2013 – Court Interpreter Compensation
May 25, 2012 – Lost in Translation: NAJIT responds to a New York Times article on the outcome of Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan.
May 21, 2012 – Supreme Court of the United States finds for the petitioner in the case of Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd issuing the opinion that interpretation and translation are two distinct professions.
November 2011 – Amicus Curiae: Brief of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators as Amicus Curiae in support of petitioner in the case of Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.
July 27, 2011 – Texas Rule Change: Provided comments to proposed rules which would create a second, lower-qualified tier of licensed court interpreters.
July 12, 2011 – Charlotte, North Carolina Organizations: Written to various organizations in Charlotte in support of their complaint to the Department of Justice regarding the failure of North Carolina to provide qualified court interpreters.
May 19, 2011 – Athens, TN: Chair Rob Cruz comments on the statement of a judge that he “speak[s] some Spanish and can tell he does a good job.”
December 13, 2010 – Salt Lake: Written to applaud the editorial stance of the Salt Lake Tribune, and to join it, deploring the intention of the Utah Judicial Council to ignore the plain guidance of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding assistant to LEP persons.
September 16, 2010 – Assistant Attorney General Perez Letter: Written in support of the guidance letter issues on August 16, 2010 by AAG Thomas Perez.
July 19, 2010 – Comments on Department of Homeland Security LEP Guidelines: Written to the Judge and staff writer involved in a case where a friend of the defendant was appointed to interpreter in court.
March 23, 2010 – Tennessee HB 262/SB 63: Collaborated with TAPIT in opposing HB 262/SB 63, which would require that all driving license materials be printed only in English.
December 2, 2009 – Nashville English-only: Collaborated with the Tennessee Association of Professional Interpreters and Translators (TAPIT) in opposing Nashville’s English-only legislation.
September 24, 2009 – California State University at Long Beach (CSULB) Interpreter Program: Written to CSULB to urge them to reconsider its decision to discontinue its highly-regarded program in interpreting and translation.
July 13, 2009 – Kohl S 1329: Written to support Senator Herbert Kohl’s legislation for grants to states to develop and implement court interpreter programs.
June 3, 2009 – Texas HB 4445: Written to Texas Governor Perry to oppose the creation of a second, less-capable tier of licensed interpreters.
March 1, 2009 – Relatives Interpreting: Issued a statement deploring the use of a suspect’s brother as an interpreter for his interrogation.
November 22, 2008 – Unmasking Iraqi Interpreters: Written to Secretary of Defense Gates opposing regulations requiring that interpreters in Iraq work without masks.
September 11, 2008 – Afghani Interpreters:. Written to Senators Levin and McCain, Chairman and Ranking Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, supporting the extension of special immigrant visas to Afghani interpreters.
July 15, 2008 – News Release/Camayd/Freixas: Drafted a news release about the ethical issues raised by the statement of Erik Camayd-Freixas.
May 29, 2008 – Ohio HB 477/SB 260: Written to oppose two companion English-only bills in the Ohio legislature.
March 12, 2008 – Maryland SB 256: Written in opposition to Maryland SB 225, an ill-conceived reaction to the dismissal of the case involving a Vai-speaking defendant.
June 26, 2007 – Maryland Vai Case: Collaboration with NAJIT’s Board of Directors and the American Translators Association to produce a joint statement about the failure of a Maryland court to locate a competent interpreter for a Vai-speaking defendant; the case against the defendant was dismissed for lack of timely prosecution because of the delay in finding an interpreter.
June 12, 2007 – Hawai’i Rules: Response to a request for comment by the Hawai’i Judiciary Public Affairs Office regarding proposed rules governing court interpreters.
April 27, 2007 – California AB 615: Written in support of AB 615, a bill to improve language services to LEPs in disaster situations.
April 12, 2007 – Kohl Bill: Written in support of legislation sponsored by Sen. Herbert Kohl regarding services to LEP individuals.
January 2007 – Virginia Letters:. Worked with a member regarding courts in Virginia that did not use certified interpreters, although required to do so. The committee wrote individually to a large number of state court judges, urging that they comply with Judicial Council rules.