Court costs for translations
Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan
In brief
The Court said this cost category excludes document translation, wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · May 21, 2012 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that the law’s category for “compensation of interpreters” covers oral translation, not document-translation costs. It wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded it).
- Who it affects
- Winners in federal cases cannot recover document-translation costs under §1920(6)’s interpreter-cost category.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Section 1920(6) is a federal law provision about costs that a winning party can recover.
Question presented
Are costs incurred in translating documents "compensation of interpreters" under 28 U.S.C. Section § 1920(6)?
What the Court decided
Holding
Because the ordinary meaning of “interpreter” is someone who translates orally from one language to another, the category “compensation of interpreters” in §1920(6) does not include the cost of document translation. Pp. 3 − 15. 633 F. 3d 1218, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
The Court read “interpreter” in its ordinary sense: someone who translates speech from one language to another. On that reading, the law’s interpreter-cost category does not cover written documents.
The vote
From the opinions
““[o]ne who interprets, particularly one who interprets words written or spoken in a foreign language””
What's next
The Ninth Circuit gets the case back and will proceed under the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Taniguchi
Opinion added: Taniguchi
More questions
- What did Justice Ginsburg argue?
- She argued that “interpreter” can refer to people who translate written words as well as speech, so the law should cover document translation.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.