Gavel Grab

A New York Times editorial took issue with a Supreme Court ruling this week that defined the word “interpreter” when it comes to a 1978 law that allows federal courts to order losing litigants to pay winning litigants the cost of interpreters.

In Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., the court, on a 6-3 vote, narrowly defined “interpreter” as “one who translates orally from one language to another.” At issue in the litigation was payment to winning litigants for the translation of written documents.

The Times editorial labeled the ruling “disappointing.” It noted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a dissent, wrote that documents as well as oral statements may determine an intelligent presentation of a case.

Document translators have long been included in the definition by federal judges, said Justice Ginsburg, to put “written words within the grasp of parties, jurors, and judges.” The editorial found hers “still the more convincing interpretation.”