The Associated Press

WASHINGTON € The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to study whether Arizona and other states can make English their official language and require most government actions to be taken in English.

The court voted to hear an appeal by a group called Arizonans for Official English. The appeal argues that an invalidated English-only amendment to the Arizona Constitution does not violate government employees' free-speech rights. The justices may not reach a decision on the merits of the Arizona measure, however. They asked both sides to address whether backers of the measure have the proper legal standing to carry the case to the nation's highest court. About 20 states have constitutional amendments or laws designating English as the official state language.

The Arizona amendment, enacted by voters in November 1988, said English is ''the language of the ballot, the public schools and all government functions and actions.'' The amendment says the state ''shall act in English and no other language.'' It applies to all government officials and employees when they are on government business. Languages other than English can be used only to help students learn English, teach foreign languages, comply with federal laws, protect public health or safety, or protect the rights of criminal defendants or crime victims.

The amendment was challenged in federal court in 1988 by Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez, then a state employee who dealt with members of the public who filed medical malpractice claims against the state. She said that while working she spoke English with English-speaking people and Spanish with Spanish-speaking people.

A federal judge threw out the amendment as a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment. Then-Gov. Rose Mofford, who had criticized the amendment, did not appeal. Arizonans for Official English intervened to file an appeal seeking to have the amendment revived. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's decision. The appeals court said the amendment ''obstructs the free flow of information and adversely affects the rights of many private persons by requiring the incomprehensible to replace the intelligible.''