Queens County has 41 court interpreters for 160 languages, forcing case delays and procedural errors for non-English speakers

Queens County, New York — one of the most linguistically diverse places on Earth — has just 41 staff interpreters to cover 160 languages spoken by litigants in its courts. Statewide, the New York court system lost 69 interpreters (a 23% decrease) between 2019 and 2025, with New York City alone losing 66 staff interpreters (a 27% decrease). When an interpreter is unavailable for a scheduled hearing, the case gets adjourned — often for weeks or months. For a defendant in custody, this means additional time in jail. For a family in a custody dispute, it means more months of uncertainty about where their children will live. The concrete harm is not just delay — it is procedural injustice during the hearings that do proceed. When courts cannot get a qualified interpreter for a less common language, they sometimes proceed with an unqualified interpreter or a family member, which introduces errors, omissions, and conflicts of interest into the record. A litigant who does not fully understand the proceedings may agree to terms they do not comprehend, waive rights they do not know they have, or fail to present critical evidence because they cannot communicate it. In family law and immigration cases, these communication failures can result in a parent losing custody or a person being deported. The right to an interpreter exists on paper, but when the interpreter pool is 41 people deep and the language demand is 160 languages wide, the right is functionally unenforceable. The shortage persists because court interpreting is a highly specialized, poorly compensated profession with no clear career path. Certified court interpreters must pass rigorous exams — in some states, the pass rate is under 20% — but starting salaries are often $40,000-$55,000, well below what bilingual professionals can earn in the private sector. Courts rely heavily on per diem freelance interpreters, who cost $50-$150 per hour but are unreliable for scheduling because they take the highest-paying gig available on any given day. California launched a $6.8 million pilot program to address this, but the scale of investment is minuscule compared to the scope of the problem. The fundamental issue is that courts treat interpretation as an operational expense to be minimized rather than a constitutional requirement to be guaranteed.