Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

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

Opinion of the Court 

The key phrase for purposes of this case is “foreign or inter-
national tribunal.” 

Standing  alone,  the  word  “tribunal”  casts  little  light  on
the question.  It can be used as a synonym for “court,” in
which  case  it  carries  a  distinctively  governmental  flavor. 
See,  e.g.,  Black’s  Law  Dictionary  1677  (4th  ed.  rev.  1968) 
(“[t]he seat of a judge” or “a judicial court; the jurisdiction 
which the judges exercise”).  But it can also be used more 
broadly to refer to any adjudicatory body.  See, e.g., Ameri-
can  Heritage  Dictionary  1369  (1969)  (“[a]nything  having 
the power of determining or judging”).  Here, statutory his-
tory indicates that Congress used “tribunal” in the broader 
sense.  A prior version of §1782 covered “any judicial pro-
ceeding”  in  “any  court  in  a  foreign  country,”  28  U. S. C.
§1782 (1958 ed.), but in 1964, Congress expanded the pro-
vision to cover proceedings in a “foreign or international tri-
bunal.”  As we have previously observed, that shift created 
“ ‘the  possibility  of  U. S.  judicial  assistance  in  connection 
with  administrative  and  quasi-judicial  proceedings
abroad.’ ”  Intel, 542 U. S., at 258 (alterations omitted).  So 
a  §1782  “tribunal”  need  not  be  a  formal  “court,”  and  the 
broad meaning of “tribunal” does not itself exclude private 
adjudicatory bodies.1  If we had nothing but this single word 
to go on, there would be a good case for including private 
arbitral panels. 

—————— 

1 Luxshare argues that commercial arbitral panels are §1782 tribunals
because they “fit comfortably” under the “quasi-judicial paradigm” from 
our decision in Intel.  Brief for Respondent in No. 21–401, p. 19.  There, 
we recognized that the body at issue, the Commission of the European 
Communities,  was  a  §1782  tribunal  in  part  because  it  was  a  “first-in-
stance  decisionmaker”  that  rendered  dispositive  rulings  reviewable  in 
court.  542 U. S., at 254–255, 258.  But we did not purport to establish a 
test  for  what  counts  as  a  foreign  or  international  tribunal.  The  issue 
before us now—whether a private arbitral body qualifies as a “foreign or
international  tribunal”—was  not  before  us  in  Intel.    No  one  there  dis-
puted that the body at issue exercised governmental authority.