The U.S. Supreme Court case Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Marie Lucie Jean, et al., 1989 dealt with the issue of whether or not the government was required to pay for an interpreter in deportation proceedings for a non-English speaking individual who could not afford one themselves. The court ruled that under federal law (the Immigration and Nationality Act), there is no requirement for the government to provide free interpreters during such proceedings if individuals cannot afford them on their own. This decision upheld previous rulings by lower courts which had also determined that while it may be beneficial to have an interpreter present during these types of legal situations, it was not a right guaranteed by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Marie Lucie Jean et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of immigration law. He contended that Congress intended to provide legal representation for immigrants in deportation proceedings if they could not afford it themselves, as is customary in criminal cases. The majority's ruling denied this right by interpreting "at no expense to the government" as meaning without any cost whatsoever, rather than simply without additional appropriations from Congress. This interpretation ignored both legislative history and precedent which supported providing counsel at government expense when necessary to ensure fair hearings. Furthermore, he criticized their refusal to defer judgment on this issue until lower courts had fully considered it; instead rushing into a hasty decision with far-reaching consequences for immigrant rights.