No, the US has no official language, but English is the de facto national language. Some laws require official documents (election forms, immigration forms, etc.) in multiple languages. You often see signs including other languages in specific locations depending on the local population (Spanish in the Southwest and Puerto Rico, French near French Canada, Native American near reservations). In addition, some state laws require the use of languages important to their local populations (e.g. Spanish on legal and warning signs in areas with a lot of Spanish-speaking citizens)
This particular law is a state law passed in Texas. It requires that schools post any privately donated signs with this message. The law is written in English, so the case is not a slam dunk. A court could find that the law specifies the phrase in English and only applies to signs with the English phrase.
This Texas law is an example of the recent trend in the state's politics to leverage private actors to enact policies that may be constitutionally questionable. They also did it with their recent abortion laws, that enable private individual and organizations to sue abortion seekers and providers for facilitating abortions, even if the people bringing suit have no relationship to the abortion activities. The constitutionality of such laws have not been determined in court yet, so they may yet run into issues.
Does it mean that I could address an official body in any language and they are obligated to respond me in it? This sounds like an open door to a lot of abuse.
> A court could find that the law specifies the phrase in English and only applies to signs with the English phrase.
That's a good point.
My main concern was about the mere probability that the case stands in court. (In France for instance, if we had such a law (not gonna happen, hopefully, but who knows), the sign would have to be in French.)
So in the case of the Arabic one in Texas, it was either a sure win (if all languages are compulsory to be accepted), or a sure loss (if there is no such a provision).
If I understand your comment correctly, there is yet a third case: any language must be accepted, but in this case the letter of the law could be made specific to English (I am just rephrasing what your wrote to make sure I understand correctly).
In any case the idea that each and every language is acce^table to deal with official bodies sounds crazy.
'In God We Trust' is the US national motto. It's literally this string of characters and nothing else. Regardless of having official language, this law looks unambiguous: any other string of characters is not covered by the law.
I am specifically not trying to be vindictive - I read this official document and was quite surprised by the fact that all federal employees must swear on God (which means, I guess, that an atheist id not bound by the oath?), that it confirms that there is no America without God, or that religion and morality are the fondements of the US.
This is besides the point, but just like the lack of official language does not mean there is no language in the US or it's not important, the lack of official religion does not mean there is no religion or it's unimportant.
On other words, why is that person expecting that a donated sign in a random language can be forced to be displayed?
If there is such a law, his lawsuit should be a non-brainer (he is assured to win).