Blackmer v. United States
52 S. Ct. 252, 284 U.S. 421, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 882 (1932)
Rule of Law:
The United States government retains jurisdiction over its citizens abroad based on the obligations of citizenship, empowering Congress to compel their attendance as witnesses in domestic criminal trials and to punish non-compliance through contempt proceedings and seizure of their property within the U.S., provided due process requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard are met.
Facts:
- Harry M. Blackmer was a citizen of the United States.
- Blackmer resided in Paris, France.
- The United States desired Blackmer's attendance as a witness on behalf of the government at a criminal trial in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
- Two subpoenas were issued to Blackmer, requiring his appearance at different times.
- U.S. consuls personally served these subpoenas upon Blackmer in France.
- Blackmer failed to appear in court as required by the subpoenas.
- Property belonging to Blackmer and located within the United States was seized by order of the court.
Procedural Posture:
- The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia adjudged Harry M. Blackmer guilty of contempt for failing to respond to subpoenas.
- The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia imposed a fine of $30,000 with costs in each of the two separate contempt proceedings, to be satisfied out of Blackmer’s seized property.
- Blackmer appealed the decrees to the Court of Appeals of the District (appellant: Blackmer, appellee: United States).
- The Court of Appeals of the District affirmed the decrees.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari (petitioner: Blackmer, respondent: United States).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Act of July 3, 1926, which authorizes federal courts to subpoena U.S. citizens residing abroad to testify in criminal trials and to punish them for contempt and seize their domestic property for non-compliance, violate the Fifth and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
No, the Act of July 3, 1926, which authorizes federal courts to subpoena U.S. citizens residing abroad to testify in criminal trials and to punish them for contempt and seize their domestic property for non-compliance, does not violate the Fifth and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Court reasoned that the United States retains authority over its citizens, even when they reside abroad, due to the obligations of citizenship. This authority includes the power inherent in sovereignty to require citizens to return to testify and to penalize them for refusal. Congress has the legislative power to define the duties of citizens and prescribe penalties for disobedience, including the duty to support the administration of justice by attending court as a witness. The method of enforcing this obligation, including service of subpoenas by U.S. consuls abroad, is valid because it does not invade the rights of foreign governments and merely provides actual notice to the citizen of their government's requirement. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, requiring appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard for judicial jurisdiction in personam, is satisfied by the statute's provisions for personal service of the subpoena, an order to show cause (also capable of personal service abroad or publication), and a hearing before a penalty is imposed. The contention that conducting a hearing in the defendant's absence for a criminal offense violates due process is rejected because contempt proceedings are sui generis (of their own kind) and not 'criminal prosecutions' under the Sixth Amendment; due process is satisfied by suitable notice and adequate opportunity to appear and to be heard. The seizure of the witness's property within the United States as a provisional remedy to secure payment of the fine is permissible, provided the contempt proceeding itself is valid. This is not an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as it is a levy to satisfy a lawful liability. The Court declined to address the Sixth Amendment claim regarding the subpoena's availability only to the government, as Blackmer, a recalcitrant witness, lacked standing to raise it.
Analysis:
This case significantly affirms the extraterritorial reach of U.S. federal law over its citizens, establishing that the obligations of citizenship follow an individual regardless of their residence. It clarifies that Congress can compel testimony from citizens abroad and enforce such mandates through contempt proceedings and property seizure, provided fundamental due process is observed. This precedent reinforces the government's inherent sovereign power to ensure the administration of justice and has implications for other areas where U.S. law applies to citizens outside its borders, such as taxation or criminal statutes.
