Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

This is where context comes in.  “Tribunal” does not stand 
alone—it belongs to the phrase “foreign or international tri-
bunal.”  And attached to these modifiers, “tribunal” is best 
understood as an adjudicative body that exercises govern-
mental  authority.2    Cf.  FCC  v.  AT&T  Inc.,  562  U. S.  397, 
406 (2011) (“[T]wo words together may assume a more par-
ticular meaning than those words in isolation”).

Take “foreign tribunal” first.  Congress could have used 
“foreign” in one of two ways here.  It could mean something 
like “[b]elonging to another nation or country,” which would 
support reading “foreign tribunal” as a governmental body.
Black’s Law Dictionary, at 775.  Or it could more generally 
mean “from” another country, which would sweep in private 
adjudicative bodies too.  See, e.g., Random House Diction-
ary of the English Language 555 (1966) (“derived from an-
other country or nation; not native”).  The first meaning is 
the better fit. 

The word “foreign” takes on its more governmental mean-
ing when modifying a word with potential governmental or 
sovereign  connotations.  That  is  why  “foreign”  suggests
something  different  in  the  phrase  “foreign  leader”  than  it 
does in “foreign films.”  Brief for Petitioners in No. 21–401, 
pp. 20–21; Brief for Respondent in No. 21–401, pp. 7–8.  The 
phrase “foreign leader” brings to mind “an official of a for-
eign state, not a team captain of a European football club.” 
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17.  So too with 
“foreign tribunal.”  “Tribunal” is a word with potential gov-
ernmental or sovereign connotations, so “foreign tribunal” 
more  naturally  refers  to  a  tribunal  belonging  to  a  foreign 
nation than to a tribunal that is simply located in a foreign
nation.  And for a tribunal to belong to a foreign nation, the 
tribunal must possess sovereign authority conferred by that 
—————— 

2 The  parties  do  not  dispute  that  the  bodies  at  issue  are  sufficiently
adjudicatory, so we need not precisely define the outer bounds of §1782 
“tribunals.”  The issue here is only whether the statute requires “tribu-
nals” to be governmental or intergovernmental bodies.