Title: <i>Ruiz v. Hull</i>: A Legal and Rhetorical Examination of “English-Only” Legislation
Abstract: The law in appellate opinions represents a conversation between appellate courts and their readers that impacts all of us in nearly every facet of our lives. The language in these opinions creates the legal relationships that shape our interactions with the government, and, more intimately, with each other. An examination of the language presented in these opinions can reveal the way language impacts our legal and social environment. The Supreme Court of Arizona, in Ruiz v. Hull, struck down as unconstitutional an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that required all state and local government business in Arizona to be conducted only in English. This paper examines the relationships created by this opinion, the keywords and phrases presented, and the reasoning held out as valid in order to develop a picture of the legal culture that emerges as a result.
Publication Year: 2014
Publication Date: 2014-02-18
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot