ProEnglish's Programs

Action
Urge Congress to
   defend English
Model official English statute
Donate
Current Legislation
State Profiles
ProEnglish BLOG
Sign up for Twitter
Email sign up

Issues
Official English
Bilingual Education
English on the Job
Citizenship and
   Immigration
Bilingual Ballots
Puerto Rican
    Statehood
Ending E.O. 13166,
   the "Multilingual
   Mandate"

In the Courts

      Since our founding, ProEnglish has been at the forefront of defending the English language in the courtroom.
      In 1988, the voters of Arizona passed an amendment to its constitution, which declared English to be the state's official language. When a U.S. district court of appeals struck down the amendment, Arizona refused to appeal. Bob Park of Arizonans for Official English together with the other ProEnglish board members founded ProEnglish in 1994 (originally named English Language Advocates) to defend Arizona's amendment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1997, ProEnglish won in the cases of Park and Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, and Ruiz v. Hull, which established the right of states and communities to declare English their official language.
      In 1999, ProEnglish was the only organization to join in defending Alabama's official English law before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Alexander v. Sandoval. In this case, a federal judge erroneously ruled that language was the equivalent of "national origin" for determining discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Law. ProEnglish continued to fight and in 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Sandoval. Nevertheless, the Justice Department under President Bush has continued to use the unfounded "language equals national origin" doctrine in Sandoval - a vacated decision -
as a basis for enforcing President Clinton's Executive Order, no. 13166, issued August 11, 2000, which forces government agencies and all federal funds recipients to provide multilingual services on demand or risk prosecution for civil rights violations and loss of federal funds.
      ProEnglish believes Executive Order 13166 is an abuse of executive power, and is suing to have the courts strike it down. We are also suing to get Alabama to restore its policy of requiring driver's license applicants to take their exams in English - the issue that triggered the Sandoval litigation.
      The illegitimate language equals national origin doctrine has also been used in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints targeting employers with English language workplace rules. ProEnglish believes these actions by the EEOC violate the law, and we have been providing pro-bono legal assistance to employers who resist.
      These court battles, and many others in which ProEnglish has been involved, qualify it as the nation's leading legal advocate for English.

In the States and
In Congress
ProEnglish works with the U.S. Congress and state referenda, as well as in the courts to defend the role of English as our common language. Accordingly, we are active in several areas of legislation and referenda, including:

supporting state initiatives to ban failed "bilingual education" programs, which deny students the right to learn in English. We also seek to redirect federal subsidies for bilingual education towards programs to help students learn English.

lobbying for a federal statute or constitutional amendment declaring English our official language. (HR 123 passed the U.S. House in the 106th congress, but was not acted on by the Senate.) We also support state referenda declaring English the official language of respective states.

Protecting the rights of employers to implement English-on-the job policies.

Preserving the long-standing tradition that English should be required for immigration.

Calling for an end to bilingual ballots.

Opposing efforts to admit as states territories such as Puerto Rico, that have another official language.

Opposing mandatory translation of official documents and voting ballots into languages other than English (except for emergency services). We reject the equation of a person's choice of language to the person's national origin, and the claim, based on this equation, that the Civil Rights Act requires all benefits and services to be provided for in any language requested.