Wisconsin Bill Proposes English as State Language, and Allows AI Court Interpreting

In July 2025, Assembly Bill 377 was introduced before the Wisconsin State Assembly. This bill is aimed at making English the official language of the US state of Wisconsin, and allowing state agencies to use AI translation tools instead of providing an interpreter to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons during court proceedings (AB 377/SB 357).

If passed, the bill would not only establish English as Wisconsin’s official language, but it would also require all official oral and written communications from “state agencies and local government units” to be in English, unless the use of another language is necessary for a “particular situation,” or “otherwise specifically required by law.”

The bill also lists eight exceptions when officers/employees of state agencies would be allowed to use other languages for official communications. Some of these exceptions are very specific, such as complying with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

At the same time, some of the listed exceptions are fairly broad. For example, other languages could be used by state employees in communications “to protect the health, safety, or liberty of any citizen.”

The text of the bill also expressly says that Wisconsin state agencies cannot “prohibit any person from becoming proficient in any language or restrict the oral or written use of any language for a nongovernmental purpose.”

“This bill is not about exclusion, nor does it seek to limit anyone’s freedom to speak or learn any language.” — Senator André Jacque

The bill would also allow state agencies to use AI translation, or “other machine-assisted translation tools,” instead of human interpreters in situations where a state agency is required to provide interpreting.

Notably, the text of the bill does not define what technologies are included in “other machine-assisted translation tools.”

Also, the bill does not propose any framework for oversight or for determining when an AI translation tool is an appropriate replacement for a human interpreter.

Diverging Perspectives

In a hearing on October 22, 2025, the Committee on Science, Technology, and AI for the State Assembly of Wisconsin received testimony discussing AB 377.

The hearing began with testimony favoring the bill from Representative David Murphy, the lead sponsor of the bill, and Senator André Jacque, one of the bill’s cosponsors. Testimony opposing the bill was then heard from a variety of witnesses, including students, professors, interpreters, and advocates.

Regarding the motivation to establish English as Wisconsin’s official language, both sponsors expressed concern that the bill could be misunderstood. Jacque said, “this bill is not about exclusion, nor does it seek to limit anyone’s freedom to speak or learn any language.”

Murphy stated that the bill “offers flexibility, allowing state and local entities to use other languages when needed for specific cases.”

Much of the testimony, however, focused on the second part of the bill, allowing state agencies to use AI translation tools “in lieu of appointing an interpreter.”

The bill’s cosponsors focused on the financial and logistical strain on the state due to the struggle to source human interpreters. Murphy stated that “currently, local courts must provide in-person interpreters at significant expense, sometimes flying them in from out of state when qualified individuals aren’t available locally.” 

He argued that allowing the state to use AI, machine translation, and “technologies like Zoom” would result in “substantial cost savings to taxpayers.”

“If you have AI that is not abreast to these different language variations, you are looking at a very high likelihood of misinterpretation, jeopardizing the individuals that are using the system.” — Karen Nguyen, Sign Language Interpreter

A notable trend in the testimony opposing the bill developed as several witnesses expressed concerns over liability, translation accuracy, and language access for vulnerable populations.

For example, Karen Nguyen, a professor and American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter, expressed concern for ASL users who frequently use non-standard signs. She stated that “if you have AI that is not abreast to these different language variations, you are looking at a very high likelihood of misinterpretation, jeopardizing the individuals that are using the system.”

“If an AI translation error impacts a trial, does the responsibility lie with the developers, the vendors, the court, or the state?” — Amanda Merkwae, Advocacy Director, ACLU of Wisconsin

Amanda Merkwae, speaking as the advocacy director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, asked, “would robot interpreters need to follow the code of ethics that interpreters have to?” 

She went on to summarize the liability issue by posing the question, “if an AI translation error impacts a trial, does the responsibility lie with the developers, the vendors, the court, or the state?” These questions are not addressed in the text of the bill.

While much of the testimony focused on interpreting in a court room setting, one committee member pointed out that the definition of “state agency” given in the bill would potentially include more state institutions. He stated that “the ‘state agency’ is defined on page two of the bill in lines 10 to 12, and it’s really very broad. I think it would include the UW’s [University of Wisconsin] hospital and clinic […] it would include schools all over the state.”