South Dakota’s new interpreter‑access law is already influencing state proceedings weeks before it formally takes effect, after a tense uranium‑drilling hearing exposed longstanding gaps in language support for Lakota speakers.
House Bill 1219, known as Helen’s Law, was passed in March and becomes effective July 1. It requires state agencies overseeing administrative contested cases to provide qualified interpreters or translators whenever a party or witness needs language assistance. Agencies must cover interpretation costs during hearings, and successful parties may recover translation expenses for documents or discovery.
The law was shaped in part by Lakota first‑language speakers involved in a contested permit application for uranium exploration in the southern Black Hills. The proposal, pending since 2024, has drawn opposition from residents concerned about groundwater contamination and the site’s proximity to Craven Canyon, an area with ancient petroglyphs and ongoing ceremonial use for indigenous communities.
Last year, project opponent Elizabeth Lone Eagle requested Lakota interpretation and identified several participants who rely on the language. An earlier ruling denied the request, but the Board of Minerals and Environment reversed course in March, citing the “spirit” of the new law even though it had not yet taken effect.
When the hearing opened May 18 in Hot Springs, no interpreter was present, despite agreeing to provide one. State officials said they struggled to secure interpreters without conflicts of interest or scheduling barriers. Opponents objected immediately, arguing that the absence of interpretation prevented meaningful participation for Lakota speakers.
By the second day, the state contracted two interpreters, including Oglala Sioux tribal member Alex White Plume. He said the state’s offered rate was inadequate but accepted the role because of the community need. Interpretation slowed the pace of testimony, but supporters of the law said access outweighed efficiency.
Tensions escalated when portions of the second day proceeded without interpretation. On the third day, Lone Eagle filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the state’s handling of interpretation denied due process to Lakota first‑language speakers. A federal judge declined to issue an emergency order halting the hearing, but the case remains active, and the board has postponed further proceedings.
As agencies prepare for the law’s July implementation, the uranium case has become an early test of how South Dakota will meet its new obligations, and how far the state must go to ensure Indigenous‑language speakers can fully participate in complex regulatory decisions.
