Court interpreting takes place in court settings and covers a wide array of judicial proceedings. Its primary goal is to enable full and equal access to the law to those suspects and defendants who are not proficient in the language of proceedings, thus ensuring their right to a fair trial. Interpreting at the Nuremberg trials is considered a milestone in the consolidation of interpreting (primarily conference interpreting) as a profession. However, it could be argued whether nowadays interpreting in court settings can be defined and analyzed under the exactly same terms that we would use to look at Nuremberg. Some could even challenge that such a historical event for the profession be labelled as court interpreting under todays’ standards. There seems to be no unanimous consensus within Interpreting Studies for establishing of a clear-cut categorization of interpreting. Pöchhacker (2016) identifies eight dimensions to map the wide range of phenomena covered by the interpreting research community. Among those dimensions, both mode (interpreting technique) and setting (genre) seem to have been the most widely used when addressing this issue of professional categorization. From the various attempts made, what stands out is that clearer boundaries can be set for interpreting in conference settings, while the limits in non-conference settings become blurred, with interpreting in legal spheres being a clear example of that. Hence the interest of wider approaches that transcend the mere juxtaposition of settings and situational descriptions, to focus on the notion of constellations of interaction (Pöchhacker 2016: 16) and the interpersonal dimension that characterizes some interpreter-mediated professional encounters (Mason 1999, 2001). This entry will attempt to provide a clear definition of court interpreting, while at the same time looking at the wider genres to which it is related, such as legal interpreting and community/public service interpreting, thus following the categorization that can be inferred from Pöchhacker (2015). It is not in vain that a common denominator for all these labels it that they all cover professional encounters where interpersonal dynamics are high and that what they all seek is equal access, whether it is to services or to the law. Some major extra-communicative and contextual factors (primarily supranational legislation and international professional standards) on which the practice of court interpreting lies, will also be looked at. Likewise, attention will be paid to the competencies and skills that court interpreters must possess, and to the role they have been assigned within multicultural and multilingual legal proceedings. Lastly, the main lines of research currently under way in the field will be drawn.