Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Dangerous Consequences of Declaring English the Official Language

Opinion

The Dangerous Consequences of Declaring English the Official Language
American flag
Photo by Ben Mater on Unsplash

en español

The latest presidential executive order designating English as the official language of the United States while simultaneously rescinding Executive Order 13166 is a shameful and unconstitutional attack on the rights of millions of Americans.


Our modern legal system is a direct descendant of Europe’s, which in turn was influenced by the courts of ancient Rome, where Latin was the predominant language. By eliminating federal language access protections, this administration has chosen to disrupt domestic tranquility by ignoring the very principles of equality and justice upon which our nation was founded.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on national origin. By dismantling language access protections, the federal government is effectively discriminating against millions of limited English proficient (LEP) individuals, barring them from accessing essential services. This order does not promote unity; it further marginalizes and disenfranchises communities that have long contributed to the fabric of this nation.

The highest court in the land has already ruled against policies that suppress linguistic diversity. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that “the protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue.” The Court affirmed that prohibiting the use of other languages is not only unconstitutional but also unjustifiable, stating: “No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed.”

This landmark decision should serve as a stark warning to those who seek to erase linguistic diversity in America. The forced linguistic assimilation imposed by this executive order contradicts a fundamental constitutional principle: that all people—regardless of language—are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law.

The Constitution State Must Lead the Way

With federal protections stripped away, states must step in to ensure that all residents can access public services, regardless of their English proficiency. Connecticut has a moral and legal duty to pass SB 955, An Act Requiring State and Local Government and State Contractors to Ensure Individuals with Limited English Proficiency Are Able to Access Public Services. This legislation is not only necessary—it is urgent. It affirms that the state of Connecticut will not participate in this egregious violation of civil rights and will continue to uphold the values of accessibility, fairness, and inclusion.

We the People “—these words do not belong solely to those who speak English. They belong to all Americans, no matter their language, heritage, or background. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Lady Liberty’s message announces the American experiment as one of inclusivity, not exclusion.

This executive order is an affront to that promise, and we must resist it with every tool at our disposal. Connecticut, and every state that values democracy, must take a stand. The future of our nation as a Just and Inclusive society depends on it.

Doris Maldonado Mendez is a Connecticut Mirror’s Community Editorial Board member.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less