Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
DISCOVERY The Supreme Court ruled, 7-1, that a U.S. judge has the power to force the world’s largest computer chip maker, California-based Intel Corp., to turn over records to foreign regulators. The justices said that a federal law gives American judges discretion to help people or governments obtain testimony or information for use in foreign or international tribunals, like overseas criminal prosecutions. The June 21 decision was a victory for a smaller competitor of Intel, which wants Intel documents to use before the European Commission (E.C.), a regulatory board that enforces European Union antitrust laws. The E.C. had been investigating whether Intel improperly used its industry dominance to keep other companies from winning market share in Europe. The commission, which had sent its lawyers to argue the case before the high court, said U.S. courts shouldn’t be involved in what was essentially a European regulatory matter. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the decision, said that U.S. law “authorizes, but does not require, a federal district court to provide judicial assistance to foreign or international tribunals or to ‘interested persons’ in proceedings abroad.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., No. 02-572. -Associated Press POLICE STOPS The justices on June 21 upheld a Nevada law that requires people to identify themselves when police stop them with reasonable suspicion of a crime. In a 5-4 decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, No. 03-5554, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that “a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.” Kennedy also said the law did not violate the Fifth Amendment bar against forced self-incrimination. The case stemmed from the arrest of Larry Hiibel, who was stopped by police responding to a call about a possible assault in the truck Hiibel was standing near. Hiibel refused to give his name 11 times and was arrested under the law, similar to statutes in most other states. -Associated Press HABEAS CORPUS The Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, in Pliler v. Ford, No. 03-221, that federal judges are not obliged to give warnings to pro se litigants about their options in so-called mixed federal habeas cases, involving both exhausted and unexhausted claims. -Associated Press

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.