OR Srate oF New York OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Ente T. ScHNEIDERMAN, JANET SABEL erat. Extcvrive DePuy ATTORNEY GrveR Divisios OF socrAL wUSTICe ‘Arroxsty Gi April 27, 2011 Via Facsimile and Mail Mr. Alan Brown Town Supervisor 28 Main Street Greenwich, New York 12834 Dear Supervisor Brown: It has come to the attention of the Attorney General's Office that the Town of Jackson has passed and implemented an ordinance designating English as the official written and spoken language of Jackson. Town of Jackson, N.Y., Local Laws no. 1 (2010) (hereinafter “the Ordinance”). As | am sure you are aware, the Ordinance prohibits all public officials and appointees in Jackson from using a language other than English, whether written or spoken, while performing government business. Please be advised that this Ordinance is, on its face, illegal. The Ordinance diseriminates against non-English speaking persons in violation of federal and state constitutional and statutory law. and infringes on the free speech rights of public employees and all people living in, visiting, or working in the Town. The Ordinance both deters and inhibits citizens, residents and members of the public who do not speak English proficiently from reporting crimes, seeking or obtaining emergency medical care. or accessing services and benefits. In so doing. the Ordinance facially discriminates against all non-English speaking persons in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and Article 1. $11 of New York Constitution. See Yellen v Baez. 676 NYS. 2d 724. 726 (Civ. Ct. 1997), The Ordinance similarly violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. §§ 200d er seg., which prohibits local governments like Jackson from discriminating against non-English speaking individuals in the administration of programs or activities that receive federal funds. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 US. 563 569 (1974); see also U.S. Dit. oF Justict, Frequently Asked Questions about the Protection of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Individuals under Title VI and Tale VI Regulations (March 16, 2011), available at hitp://www.justice.goviervlep. Specifically, the Ordinance flies in the face of Title VI by 120 Broadway, New Vork, NY 10271-0332 « Phome (212) 4168450 Fas (212) 416-6007 sJun Lay.gov‘excluding residents or visitors from full participation in Town services that are federally funded whieh might include education, emergency services. public assistance and other benefits and services, In addition, the Ordinance violates the Kirst Amendment and Article 1, § 8 of the New York State Constitution by purposefully depriving public employees of the ability to communicate with the public, as well as depriving non-Fnglish-speaking residents or visitors of access to information about their government and rights. Public employees have free speech rights to speak on matters of public concern, and all citizens, residents and visitors have the right to access information about the government. See United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, 463-66 (1995): Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984, 998 (Ariz. 1998). Indeed. public officials have an obligation to speak about public policy and governmental affairs to inform and fully represent all members of the public. By contrast, and in clear violation of these rights, the Jackson Ordinance explicitly and unlawfully restricts communication between public employees and members of the public who may not speak English proficiently. Our office is unaware of any other local government in the State of New York with a local law in effect that prohibits any and all government communications in languages other than English Regardless, Jackson's ordinance cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Indeed, similar and even less restrictive English-only laws in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Alaska have all been struck down by federal and state courts. See e.g. Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 69 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1995),vacated on other grounds, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997): Alaskans for a Common Language. Ine. v. Kritz. 170 P.3d 183 (Alaska 2007): In re Initiative Petition No. 366, 46 P.3d 123 (Okla. 2002); Ruiz v. Hull, 957 P.2d 984 (Ariz, 1998), Spencer Freedman. Chief Counsel for the Civil Rights Bureau at the New York State Attorney General's Office, spoke with the Town Attorney, Mr. Wrigley. and advised him of our office's position ‘on this matter and requested that the Ordinance be rescinded with all deliberate speed. He informed ‘Mr. Freedman that the Town Board is next scheduled to meet on May 4, 2011, at which point the Board could begin the process of rescinding the law. Accordingly, please cease and desist all enforcement of Local Law | immediately. Further, we request that the Board pass a resolution at the May 4" meeting to rescind Local Law I and to place this matter on the public agenda for the June 1“ Board meeting, and that the Ordinance be rescinded on June 1%. In the event the Ordinance is not rescinded on June 1, our office will consider more formal steps to ensure that his unlawful Ordinance is invalidated and res Sincerely, Clot Gab Hlanet Sabel Executive Deputy Attorney General for Social Justice ce: Alan Wrigley Tammy Skellie Gilbert 120 BROADWAY. NEW YORK. NY I PhOns (212) 416-8050 @ Fax (212) 116-8042 # ww AeNy HOW