United States v. Robert E. Meyer
1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17620, 864 F.2d 214, 1988 WL 137821 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person violates the Export Administration Act's anti-boycott provisions if they knowingly furnish information in response to a request they know is boycott-related. The requisite intent does not require a specific intent to violate U.S. law or an agreement with the underlying boycott.
Facts:
- Robert Meyer, a lawyer, was assisting a client seeking to register a trademark in Saudi Arabia.
- In December 1977, Meyer received an 'Authorization of Agent' form from a Saudi firm that included a 'Creed Declaration' stating the client's company had no business relations with Israel, referencing specific 'boycott principles'.
- In January 1978, Meyer mailed the completed form to the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, D.C.
- In February 1978, the U.S. State Department refused to notarize the form for Meyer's associate, explaining it could not authenticate documents 'relating to the Arab boycott of Israel.'
- The associate then informed Meyer about the State Department's refusal due to the 'Arab boycott' and instead had the form authenticated by the U.S. Arab Chamber of Commerce.
- In April 1978, Meyer wrote to his client, explicitly acknowledging that the 'boycott provisions' in the document were causing problems with authentication.
- In September 1978, Meyer sent the completed and authenticated form to the Saudi Arabian firm that had originally requested it.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Commerce Department charged Robert Meyer with violating anti-boycott regulations issued under the Export Administration Act.
- The Commerce Department imposed a $5,000 civil fine against Meyer.
- Meyer refused to pay the fine.
- The U.S. government brought an enforcement action in the U.S. District Court to collect the penalty.
- The district court upheld the assessment and found in favor of the government.
- Robert Meyer (Appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
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 a person furnish information 'with intent to comply with' an unsanctioned foreign boycott under the Export Administration Act if they knowingly provide boycott-related information, even without a specific intent to violate U.S. law?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A person furnishes information with the requisite intent to comply with a foreign boycott if they act knowing that their action was required or requested for boycott reasons. The regulations explicitly state that intent in this context is the reason for one's behavior, not an agreement with the boycott or a desire for it to succeed. The regulations provide an example nearly identical to this case, stating that answering questions about business relationships with a boycotted country, with knowledge that the information is sought for boycott reasons, is prohibited. Meyer was clearly aware the form was boycott-related, as evidenced by the form's explicit language and the State Department's refusal to authenticate it. The district court's finding that Meyer did not consciously intend to violate the law is irrelevant; ignorance of the law is no excuse, and by intentionally complying with the request for boycott-related information, he violated the regulations.
Dissenting - John R. Brown, Circuit Judge
No. A violation of the anti-boycott regulations requires a conscious awareness that one's actions are illegal, not merely knowledge that the information requested is boycott-related. The regulations state it is 'essential that one take such action with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott' and that an inadvertent action 'without boycott intent' is not a violation. Citing the Supreme Court's reasoning in Liparota v. United States, the government must prove knowledge of illegality for crimes that are not inherently wrong. Since the trial judge explicitly found that Meyer 'at no time ... consciously intend[ed] to violate the laws,' the government failed to prove the necessary mental state for a violation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'intent' standard for violations of the Export Administration Act's anti-boycott regulations, establishing it as a general intent crime rather than one requiring specific intent. The court's holding makes it significantly easier for the government to enforce these provisions, as it only needs to prove that the actor knew the request was boycott-related. This ruling solidifies the broad scope of the regulations, putting professionals like attorneys on notice that they cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defense when facilitating client transactions involving boycott compliance. It distinguishes the statute from other criminal laws where courts have required proof that the defendant knew their conduct was illegal.
