The U.S. Supreme Court case Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., centered around the interpretation of a statute that allows prevailing parties in federal lawsuits to recover costs for "compensation of interpreters." Taniguchi, a professional baseball player from Japan, sued Kan Pacific for injuries sustained at their resort in the Northern Mariana Islands but lost. Subsequently, Kan Pacific sought reimbursement for translating documents from Japanese to English as part of its defense preparation under this statute. The question before the court was whether document translation fell within the scope of "compensation of interpreters". In 2012, Justice Alito delivered the opinion on behalf of a 6-3 majority ruling that it did not; an interpreter is someone who translates orally or into sign language and does not include written translations. Therefore, Kan Pacific could not recoup its translation expenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of "compensation of interpreters" in 28 U.S.C. §1920(6) was too narrow and failed to consider how translation services are used in modern litigation. She pointed out that written translations are often crucial to court proceedings, especially when dealing with international disputes or parties who do not speak English as their first language. Therefore, she believed these costs should be recoverable under section 1920(6). Furthermore, she criticized the majority's reliance on dictionary definitions from a time period before Congress enacted this statute and its failure to consider subsequent changes in technology and legal practice which have expanded the role of translators beyond oral interpretation alone.