*Nikkie Navarro
I. Introduction
A Hispanic mother called her local police station after a Chevrolet Avalanche ran over her daughter’s foot.[1] Neither the mother nor the father spoke English fluently, and the responding officers, who spoke no Spanish, failed to request an interpreter.[2] The officers refused to provide the parents with the driver’s information and told the father that, if he asked for a report, the officers would show that their injured daughter was at fault.[3] The family sued the police station on their daughter’s behalf for multiple claims, including Title VI national origin discrimination.[4]
The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the police department because the family failed to show intentional discrimination by the officers despite the absence of an interpreter.[5] Without services to help bridge language barriers, this is the reality of how language access services impact individuals living in the United States with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).[6] Without language access services, people who do not speak English fluently face grave disadvantages in accessing the same services as those who do.[7] Now that an executive order has been issued declaring English as the official language of the United States,[8] national original discrimination claims may begin to rise due to a lack of language access services.[9]
II. The Provisions of Executive Order 14224
On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14224 “Designating English as the Official Language of the United States.”[10] Executive Order 14224 revoked Executive Order 13166 “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” which “required federal agencies and federally funded organizations to provide access to services in languages other than English-only.”[11]
Although Executive Order 13166 was revoked, Executive Order 14224 does not require any agency to change the services they provide.[12] Instead, agency heads now have the discretionary authority to change their respective language access accommodations as they deem fit.[13] Additionally, the Attorney General is now responsible for rescinding any policy guidance documents issued under Executive Order 13166 and providing updated guidance in accordance with Executive Order 14224.[14]
III. A Brief History of National Origin Discrimination and Language Access Services
By rolling back programs that accommodate people who are LEP, many immigrants may likely face challenges regarding access to healthcare and other service providers.[15] People who are considered LEP “do not speak English as their primary language and have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand” English.[16] Approximately 25 million immigrants living in states like California, Texas, and New York are considered LEP.[17] Despite current controversy over which constitutional rights do and do not apply to immigrants,[18] the Department of Justice states on its website that “it is well-settled”[19] that the language of Title VI that “no person”[20] shall be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination, applies to “citizens and noncitizens alike.”[21]Therefore, denying language access services could result in national origin discrimination for immigrants who are LEP.[22]
In Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court ruled that national origin discrimination occurs through the “exclu[sion of] national origin-minority group[s] from effective[ly] participati[ng] in…educational program[s]” due to language deficiencies.[23] Although the Department of Justice argues that Alexander v. Sandoval overruled the ability to bring a national origin discrimination claim based on disparate impact,[24] the Court has not yet spoken on the requirement established by Lau which states that “public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination.”[25] Given that the Court has not overturned the public funds requirement in Lau, the government “must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency” to make public programs accessible, ensuring that public funds are not spent in any manner that results in racial discrimination.[26] Since the government is required to take affirmative steps to rectify language deficiencies, it is possible that a national origin discrimination claim could be raised if people are intentionally excluded from participating in federally funded programs due to language deficiencies.[27]
IV. The Law Still Protects Language Access Services
Although there is growing tension between Executive Order 14224 and Title VI, Title VI remains the law, and agencies must fulfill their legal responsibilities to provide funding without discriminating against those protected under Title VI.[28]
Under Title VI, an agency cannot deny “grant recipients, entities receiving reimbursements through public health insurance programs, and federal contractors” based on the recipients’ national origin.[29] For instance, if a federal agency reduces language access services for Spanish-speakers, healthcare providers would not be able to translate materials to provide quality healthcare for Spanish-speakers with LEP.[30] Thus, the agency could have arguably violated Title VI if Spanish-speaking recipients were intentionally denied language assistance to access public health insurance programs based on their national origin.[31] Although Executive Order 14224 allows federal agencies to revoke their language access services, an individual could still potentially bring a Title VI national origin discrimination claim if they are intentionally denied access to language assistance.[32]
Even though Title VI still protects individuals from national origin discrimination,[33] the consequences of Executive Order 14224 are beginning to manifest.[34] For example, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice temporarily removed its LEP requirements help page.[35] Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security terminated its contract with a language service provider and directed its employees to discontinue calls when its employees are not fluent in the caller’s language.[36] Given that the Court has not addressed the finding in Lau that the government cannot exclude groups from participating in public programs because of language deficiencies, the government is still required to take affirmative steps to rectify language deficiencies.[37] Although agencies are beginning to comply with Executive Order 14224,[38] failure to affirmatively rectify language deficiencies remains unlawful, as it may constitute a Title VI national origin claim through intentional language-based discrimination.[39]
V. Conclusion
Title VI will continue to protect individuals’ abilities to benefit from federally funded programs regardless of Executive Order 14224.[40] Nevertheless, now that English is the official language of the United States, the potential for national origin discrimination claims may increase as agencies alter and adjust their language access policies to prioritize access to services primarily in English and limit access to individuals with LEP.[41]
*Nikkie Navarro is a second-year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a proud Fannie Angelos Program Scholar. Her academic involvement includes serving as a Staff Editor for the University of Baltimore Law Review, a member of the Royal Graham Shannonhouse III Honor Society, a Law Scholar for Contracts, and a Teaching Assistant for Introduction to Legal Skills (ILS). In Spring 2026, Nikkie will intern with The Honorable Douglas R.M. Nazarian of the Appellate Court of Maryland as a Judicial Intern.
[1] J.D.H. v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, No. 2:13–CV–01300–APG–NJK, 2014 WL 3809131, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2014).
[2] Id. at *1, *2.
[3] Id. at *2.
[4] Id. at *2–8.
[5] See id. at *9.
[6] Matt Croker, Study Reveals Language Access Challenges, UC Irvine: School of Social Ecology, https://socialecology.uci.edu/news/study-reveals-language-access-challenge (Mar. 11, 2025).
[7] Id.
[8] Exec. Order No. 14224, 90 Fed. Reg. 11363 (Mar. 1, 2025).
[9] Alisha Rao, Drishti Pillai, & Samantha Artiga, Designating English as the Official Language of the United States Could Impact Millions with Limited English Proficiency, KFF, https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states-could-impact-millions-with-limited-english-proficiency/ (Oct. 10, 2025).
[10] 90 Fed. Reg. at 11363.
[11] What Does LEP Mean—and Why It Matters in an “English-Only” America, Int’l Ctr. For Language Stud.: ICLS Language Learning Blog (Apr. 21, 2025), https://www.icls.edu/blog/what-does-lep-mean-and-why-it-matters-in-an-english-only-america (citing Exec. Order 13166, 65 Fed. Reg. 50121 (Aug. 11, 2000)); Exec. Order No. 14224, 90 Fed. Reg. 11363 (Mar. 1, 2025)).
[12] 90 Fed. Reg. at 11363.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Rao, Pillai, & Artiga, supra note 9.
[16] Int’l Ctr. for Language Stud., supra note 11.
[17] Chhandasi Pandya, Margie McHugh & Jeanne Batalova, Migration Pol’y Inst.: Nat’l Ctr. on Immigr. Integration Pol’y, Limited English Proficient Individuals in the United States: Number, Share, Growth, and Linguistic Diversity 1, 2 (2011), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/LEPdatabrief.pdf.
[18] See Eric Levenson, What Rights Do Immigrants Have, and What Do They Not Have?, CNN (Apr. 1, 2025, at 14:55 ET), https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/us/immigrants-rights-explainer.
[19] Section V – Defining Title VI, U.S. Dep’t of Just. C.R. Div., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6manual5 (last visited Oct. 29, 2025).
[20] Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 601, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
[21] Section V – Defining Title VI, U.S. Dep’t of Just. C.R. Div., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6manual5 (last visited Oct. 29, 2025).
[22] Rao, Pillai, & Artiga, supra note 9 (explaining that a government agency must intentionally discriminate by refusing to provide language access services for an individual with LEP to bring a Title VI claim).
[23] Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 566–69 (1974) (citing Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 601; Policies on Elementary and Secondary School Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 33 Fed. Reg. 4955 (Mar. 23, 1968); Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of National Origin, 33 Fed. Reg. 4955 (July 18, 1970)).
[24] Harvard Law School, President Trump and DOJ Recommended Agencies Narrow Language Access Resources, Env’t. Energy L. Program (July 14, 2025), https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/rollback-doj-rescinded-longstanding-limited-english-proficiency-lep-guidance-following-executive-order-14224/ (citing Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 285 (2001)).
[25] Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001); Lau, 414 U.S. at 568 (citing 110 Cong. Rec. 6543 (1964) (statement of Sen. Hubert Humphrey)).
[26] Lau, 414 U.S. at 568 (quoting Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of National Origin, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595 (July 18, 1970)).
[27] See id.
[28] Joanna E. Cuevas Ingram & Ben D’Avanzo, Trump Administration’s Attempts to Dismantle Language Access Do Not Erase Civil Rights Law, Nat’l Immigr. L. Ctr. (Aug. 7, 2025), https://www.nilc.org/articles/trump-administrations-attempts-to-dismantle-language-access-do-not-erase-civil-rights-law/.
[29] Id.
[30] See Rao, Pillai, & Artiga, supra note 9.
[31] See id.
[32] See id.
[33] Ingram & D’Avanzo, supra note 28.
[34] See infra note 35; see infra note 36.
[35] Limited English Proficiency, U.S. Dep’t Just. (July 17, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/crt/limited-english-proficiency.
[36] Eric Katz, Trump Administration Cancels Translation Services for Those Seeking to Access or Correct Their Immigration Status, Gov’t Exec. (Mar. 14, 2025), https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/03/trump-administration-cancels-translation-services-those-seeking-access-or-correct-their-immigration-status/403778/.
[37] Lau, 414 U.S. at 566–568.
[38] Limited English Proficiency, supra note 35; Katz, supra note 36.
[39] Ingram & D’Avanzo, supra note 28.
[40] See supra Part IV.
[41] See supra Part III.
University of Baltimore Law Review 