The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Fiscal Policy
BILL: SB 468
INTRODUCER: Senator Bradley
SUBJECT: Court Interpreter Services
DATE: February 20, 2024 REVISED:
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Davis Cibula JU Favorable
2. Kolich Harkness ACJ Favorable
3. Davis Yeatman FP Favorable
I. Summary:
SB 468 creates an exception to the general rule that state revenues may not be provided to non-
indigent people for due process services. Due process services include, but are not limited to,
court reporting services, court interpreter and translation services, and expert witness services.
The bill authorizes the State Courts System to spend state revenues to provide court-appointed
interpreting services to non-indigent people if:
Funds are available in the fiscal year appropriation for due process services; and
Interpreting services are provided as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
The bill also repeals the requirement that the trial court administrator recover the cost of court
interpreter services.
The bill will not have a significant fiscal impact to the State Courts System. See Section V.,
Fiscal Impact Statement.
The bill takes effect upon becoming a law.
II. Present Situation:
Current Requirements for Providing a Language Interpreter
Florida courts are required to appoint a spoken language interpreter for non-English speaking
and limited-English-proficient people in certain cases in order to comply with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under current law, a spoken language interpreter is appointed in
criminal and juvenile delinquency cases for non-English-speaking and limited-English-proficient
BILL: SB 468 Page 2
people.1 In all other cases, the court appoints an interpreter for non-English-speaking and
limited-English-proficient litigants only when the court determines that:
The litigant’s inability to comprehend English deprives the litigant of an understanding of the
court proceedings;
A fundamental interest is at stake (such as in a civil commitment, termination of parental
rights, paternity, or dependency proceeding); and
No alternative to the appointment of an interpreter exists.2
If a judge determines that a witness cannot hear or understand the English language, or cannot
express himself or herself in English sufficiently to be understood, an interpreter will be
appointed. This standard is not limited to people who speak a language other than English, but
also applies to the language and descriptions of any person, including a child or person who is
mentally or developmentally disabled, who cannot be reasonably understood, or who cannot
understand questioning without the aid of an interpreter.3
Current law, however, provides that state-funded court interpreting services may not be provided
to someone unless he or she is indigent.4 Additionally, current law requires the trial court
administrator to recover state-funded court interpreting services from litigants who have the
present ability to pay. The rate of compensation for interpreting services is the actual cost of the
interpreting services plus the cost of the recovery. The amounts recovered are deposited into the
Administrative Trust Fund with the state courts system.5
U.S. Department of Justice
In 2010, the U. S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, (Department) issued a letter to
state court chief justices and state court administrators providing clarity to state courts regarding
their obligation to provide language access services to parties or witnesses with limited English
proficiency. The Department noted that denying people with limited English proficiency
meaningful access to the courts could place state courts in violation of civil rights requirements,
particularly Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the policies noted that impede
compliance were:
Limiting the types of proceedings for which qualified interpreter services are provided by the
court.
Charging interpreter costs to parties.
Restricting language services to courtrooms.
Failing to ensure effective communication with court-appointed or supervised personnel.6
1
Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.560.
2
Id.
3
Section 90.606, F.S.
4
Section 29.0185, F.S.
5
Section 29.0195, F.S.
6
Department of Justice Guidance Letter Regarding the Obligation to Provide Language Access, (Aug. 17, 2010)
https://www.justice.gov/file/1250731/download as provided in the Office of the State Courts Administrator Bill Analysis in
note 7.
BILL: SB 468 Page 3
Representatives of the Department are monitoring Florida’s activities for compliance and
progress in this area.7
State Court Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability
Additionally, the state Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability has been
evaluating the state trial courts’ ability to expand interpreting services without charging court
participants and without regard to their financial status. The Commission recommended an initial
expansion of court interpreter services, without cost and regardless of someone’s indigency
status in limited areas. The Florida Supreme Court approved the report.8
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
The bill amends s. 29.0185, F.S., to create an exception to the general prohibition against
providing state-funded due process services to non-indigent persons. The bill authorizes the use
of state revenues by the State Courts System to provide court-appointed interpreting services to
non-indigent people if:
Funds are available in the fiscal year appropriation for due process services; and
Interpreting services are provided as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
The bill also amends s. 29.0195, F.S., to repeal the requirement that the trial court administrator
recover the costs of court interpreter services, which are deposited into the Administrative Trust
Fund.
These changes will help bring Florida law into compliance with the Department of Justice’s
guidance letter regarding the obligation of state courts to provide language access services under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The bill takes effect upon becoming a law.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
7
Office of the State Courts Administrator, 2024 Judicial Impact Statement for SB 468 (Jan. 17, 2024)
https://abar.laspbs.state.fl.us/ABAR/Attachment.aspx?ID=35461.
8
Id.
BILL: SB 468 Page 4
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None identified.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
None.
C. Government Sector Impact:
The bill does not have a fiscal impact to the State Court System in excess of its annual
appropriation. The Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) estimates that there
will be additional demand on full-time equivalent or contract interpreters in the judicial
circuits to the extent that court interpreting services will be expanded.9 However, the bill
limits payment for these services to non-indigent individuals to the funds available in the
fiscal year appropriation. In Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the trial courts were appropriated
$21,663,353 in due process costs. Of these funds, $1,773,269 were reverted.
While the bill eliminates the cost-recovery provision for court interpreting services, the
State Court System thus far has only collected $3,820 for court interpreting-related costs
in Fiscal Year 2023-24. The bill’s impact on the Administrative Trust Fund would likely
be insignificant.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 29.0185 and
29.0195.
9
Office of the State Courts Administrator, 2024 Judicial Impact Statement for SB 468 (Jan. 17, 2024)
https://abar.laspbs.state.fl.us/ABAR/Attachment.aspx?ID=35461.
BILL: SB 468 Page 5
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.
Statutes affected: S 468 Filed: 29.0185, 29.0195