Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
542 U.S. 241 (2004)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Opinion (Ruth Bader Ginsburg)  | 
  • Concurrence (Antonin Scalia)  | 
  • Dissent (Stephen G. Breyer)

542 U. S. ____ (2004)
542 U. S. ____ (2004)
542 U. S. ____ (2004)
NO. 02-572


on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 21, 2004]

   Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment.

   As today’s opinion shows, the Court’s disposition is required by the text of the statute. None of the limitations urged by petitioner finds support in the categorical language of 28 U. S. C. §1782(a). That being so, it is not only (as I think) improper but also quite unnecessary to seek repeated support in the words of a Senate Committee Report—which, as far as we know, not even the full committee, much less the full Senate, much much less the House, and much much much less the President who signed the bill, agreed with. Since, moreover, I have not read the entire so-called legislative history, and have no need or desire to do so, so far as I know the statements of the Senate Report may be contradicted elsewhere.

   Accordingly, because the statute—the only sure expression of the will of Congress—says what the Court says it says, I join in the judgment.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.