SOC 27-3091.00

Court Interpreter

VerdictHigher Risk
Signal 01 · structural exposure
97
/ 100

Court Interpreter scores just 3/100 on this site's structural exposure measure, one of the lowest structural readings reviewed anywhere on this site, reflecting how close language conversion sits to the core use case large language models were built for; generic machine translation already handles a large share of everyday document and business-interpretation demand.

Signal 02 · real-world AI usage
Not yet available

We have not ingested real-world usage data for this occupation yet. We show a band only where genuine data exists, rather than estimate one.

What this is not
Neither reading measures whether any single court interpreter has lost work to AI. That data does not exist anywhere yet — both signals describe tasks, not headcount.
How we calculated this →

What a court interpreter actually does

Court interpreters provide real-time spoken-language access in courtrooms, depositions, and other legal proceedings, converting testimony, judicial instructions, and attorney arguments between English and another language as the proceeding happens, either simultaneously (near-instant, typically via headset) or consecutively (in segments, after a speaker pauses). They also perform sight translation of documents handed to a witness mid-hearing, and everything must be rendered with word-for-word fidelity, including tone, register, and legal nuance, without adding, omitting, or summarizing.

The role shares an O*NET occupational code with the broader 'Interpreters and Translators' category, which also covers business, medical, and conference interpreting plus written document translation, fields where AI-driven machine translation is displacing work fast. Court work is the narrower, higher-stakes slice: the U. S.

Constitution's due-process guarantees give a defendant or witness with limited English proficiency a recognized right to a competent interpreter, and several federal circuits have held that an incompetent interpretation can itself violate that right and overturn a verdict on appeal. That legal exposure, not habit, is what keeps courts requiring credentialed humans for the interpretation itself even as they adopt AI tools elsewhere in case processing.

Why it reads this way

Court Interpreter scores just 3/100 on this site's structural exposure measure, one of the lowest structural readings reviewed anywhere on this site, reflecting how close language conversion sits to the core use case large language models were built for; generic machine translation already handles a large share of everyday document and business-interpretation demand. What that number misses is that court interpretation sits behind a real legal wall the rest of the broader 'Interpreters and Translators' category doesn't have.

Federal courts require passing the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination, currently offered in only three languages (Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Navajo); every other language relies on state-level certification run through the National Center for State Courts' consortium process.

On top of that credentialing bar, courts face active legal risk if they get interpretation wrong: multiple federal circuits have held that inadequate interpretation for a limited-English-proficient defendant or witness can violate their constitutional due-process rights, grounds an appeal can be won on.

That risk is exactly why regulators have moved cautiously rather than adopting AI wholesale: the UK's Ministry of Justice explicitly ruled out AI interpretation in courts in 2025 over accuracy and ethical concerns, Ohio's Supreme Court adopted new rules in November 2025 specifically to regulate rather than expand AI use in court interpretation, and a Wisconsin bill that would have permitted (not required) AI interpreting stalled in committee.

Meanwhile, states report real shortages of certified interpreters, especially outside Spanish, in languages including Mandarin, Arabic, Haitian Creole, and Vietnamese, a demand pressure independent of the automation story.

Skills this role draws on

We don't yet have task-by-task time-share data for this occupation, so we can't show which specific tasks carry the exposure score above. This is the real skill set instead.

Simultaneous and Consecutive InterpretationSight Translation of Legal DocumentsLegal and Judicial TerminologyCourtroom Protocol and ProcedureConfidentiality and Interpreter Code of EthicsCultural and Linguistic FluencyActive Listening Under Time Pressure
Pay & demand

Typical salary range (USD)

$37,070–$103,660

Average: $60,170/yr

Demand
Medium
Growth outlook
Stable
Projected growth
1-2% (2024-2034), slower than the 3% average for all occupations, with about 6,900 openings projected annually (BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook / O*NET OnLine projections)

Range source: BLS OEWS wage data via O*NET OnLine (2025 release), SOC 27-3091.00 'Interpreters and Translators'
Average source: BLS OEWS wage data for Interpreters and Translators (27-3091.00) via O*NET OnLine, 2025 wage data (Annual Median Wage)

Training
Bachelor's degree is the typical entry point (bilingual fluency matters more than the specific major), followed by passing a federal or state court interpreter certification exam; federal certification (FCICE) is offered in only three languages, so most interpreters certify through state programs run via the National Center for State Courts' consortium process, a path that can take 1-3 years including exam preparation and supervised practicum hours
Bachelor's Degree (typical, bilingual fluency required regardless of major)Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination (FCICE — Spanish, Haitian Creole, Navajo only)State Court Interpreter Certification (National Center for State Courts consortium exam, most other languages)Supervised Practicum / Mentored Courtroom ExperienceContinuing Education and Periodic Recertification
Research verdict
Assessed as of 2026-08-16
AI-resistant despite the paperwork

Court Interpreter scores 3/100 (Medium confidence) — one of the lowest structural readings on this site, since language conversion is close to the core capability large language models were built for. What the number misses: federal courts require the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination (currently offered in only 3 languages), other languages route through state certification via the National Center for State Courts' consortium process, and multiple federal circuits have held that inadequate courtroom interpretation can violate a limited-English-proficient defendant's constitutional due-process rights — real legal exposure for a court that gets this wrong. A targeted search for real courtroom AI-interpreter deployment came up empty: the UK's Ministry of Justice explicitly ruled out AI interpretation in courts in 2025 over accuracy and ethical concerns, Ohio's Supreme Court adopted rules in November 2025 to regulate rather than expand AI use in court interpretation, and a Wisconsin bill that would have permitted (not required) AI interpreting stalled in committee. One partial counter-signal, disclosed rather than discarded: a 2026 industry survey of interpreting-technology users found roughly 1 in 5 relying solely on AI tools, though that figure spans the broader interpreting field (business, medical, conference work) rather than certified court proceedings specifically, as of 2026-08-16.

Last updated: December 2025Source: BLS OEWS wage data via O*NET OnLine (2025 release), SOC 27-3091.00 'Interpreters and Translators'

Data sources & methodology

Salary data: BLS OEWS wage data via O*NET OnLine (2025 release), SOC 27-3091.00 'Interpreters and Translators'. Min/max figures represent the 10th–90th percentile annual wage range across the United States. Average figure sourced separately: BLS OEWS wage data for Interpreters and Translators (27-3091.00) via O*NET OnLine, 2025 wage data (Annual Median Wage).

Automation Risk Score: Based on O*NET occupational analysis (27-3091.00) evaluating task complexity, physical requirements, social intelligence, and environmental variability. Methodology based on research from Frey & Osborne (Oxford, 2017).

Growth projections: 1-2% (2024-2034), slower than the 3% average for all occupations, with about 6,900 openings projected annually (BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook / O*NET OnLine projections), based on BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook.

Learn more about our methodology