Recently, several elected officials have voiced their concern that the initiative to make English the official language of Nashville would be declared unconstitutional. While the freedoms allowed to us by the Constitution allow individuals to voice their opinion on any legislative matter, the prevailing legal opinion by actual judges at the local, state and federal level is that official English legislation is constitutionally sound.

While some overly broad official English laws ran into constitutional difficulties decades ago, state courts in Alaska, Iowa, and Utah have recently found official English laws constitutional. Also, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found a city language law constitutional. It is significant to note that in the three states to pass official English legislation in the last 27 months – Arizona, Idaho, and Kansas – there has not been a single case challenging the constitutionality of the enacted law.

While some groups strongly oppose the laws on policy grounds, they are aware that they have little chance to reverse the laws on legal grounds. In July 2006, the city of Hazelton, Pa. passed a series of laws, including one to make English the official language. While the other laws were struck down on constitutional grounds, the official English provision was not even challenged and remains in place.

Courts have consistently held that individuals have no constitutional right to be provided with government documents in their native language. The fact that Nashville does not currently print documents in Portuguese, Swedish or Farsi is not an ongoing constitutional violation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that converting a constitutional government practice from de facto (existing in practice) to de jure (official policy) does not make it unconstitutional. Residents who could not get printed materials in certain languages after the law is passed are on no different constitutional grounds than speakers of Portuguese, Swedish or Farsi before the law was passed.