U.S. Courts Ann. Rep. 23, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/li-brary/dirrpt02/2002.pdf. 3 . The United States Supreme Court has not yet recognized a constitutional right to a court-appointed interpreter, but it has noted that the use of an interpreter is within the discretion of a trial court. Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86, 91, 27 S.Ct. 456, 51 L.Ed. 722 (1907). The Supreme Court has also commented on language and the Constitution in other contexts. For example, the Supreme Court has stated that "the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those bom with English on the tongue.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 401, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (<HOLDING>); see also Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S.
holding under texas version of the recognition act that public policy exception is not triggered simply because the body of foreign law upon which the judgment is based is different from the law of the forum or because the foreign law is more favorable to the judgment creditor than the law of the forum holding unconstitutional a state law which restricted the teaching of foreign languages holding pennsylvania foreign attachment procedures unconstitutional holding state buy american statute unconstitutional because it interfered with federal foreign affairs power emphasizing its effect on foreign commerce holding that ordinance restricting use of foreign languages on business signs overtly discriminates on the basis of national origin