Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf
Page Number: 14

10 

ZF AUTOMOTIVE US, INC. v. LUXSHARE, LTD. 

Opinion of the Court 

States participate[d] as a party.’ ”  Act of June 7, 1933, ch. 
50, 48 Stat. 117.  The process of combining these two statu-
tory  lines  began  when  Congress  established  the  Commis-
sion on International Rules of Judicial Procedure.  See Act 
of Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–906, §§1–2, 72 Stat. 1743.  It 
charged the Commission with improving the process of ju-
dicial assistance, specifying that the “assistance and coop-
eration” was “between the United States and foreign coun-
tries” and that “the rendering of assistance to foreign courts 
and quasi-judicial agencies” should be improved.  Ibid. (em-
phasis  added).  In  1964,  Congress  adopted  the  Commis-
sion’s proposed legislation, which became the modern ver-
sion of §1782. 

Interpreting  §1782  to  reach  only  bodies  exercising  gov-
ernmental authority is consistent with Congress’ charge to 
the Commission.  Seen in light of the statutory history, the
amendment did not signal an expansion from public to pri-
vate bodies, but rather an expansion of the types of public 
bodies covered.  By broadening the range of governmental
and intergovernmental bodies included in §1782, Congress 
increased the “assistance and cooperation” rendered by the
United States to those nations. 

After all, the animating purpose of §1782 is comity: Per-
mitting  federal  courts  to  assist  foreign  and  international 
governmental  bodies  promotes  respect  for  foreign  govern-
ments and encourages reciprocal assistance.  It is difficult 
to  see  how  enlisting  district  courts  to  help  private  bodies
would serve that end.  Such a broad reading of §1782 would 
open district court doors to any interested person seeking
assistance for proceedings before any private adjudicative 
body—a category broad enough to include everything from 
a commercial arbitration panel to a university’s student dis-
ciplinary tribunal.  See Brief for Petitioners in No. 21–401, 
at 19.  Why would Congress lend the resources of district
courts to aid purely private bodies adjudicating purely pri-
vate disputes abroad?