Blackmer v. United States

Background

Harry M. Blackmer, a U.S. citizen living in Paris, was held in contempt for failing to obey two subpoenas served on him in France that ordered him to appear and testify for the United States at a criminal trial in the District of Columbia. The trial court fined him $30,000 in each of two separate proceedings and ordered his U.S. property seized to satisfy those fines. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court reviewed whether the statute authorizing consular service and related procedures was constitutional.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Act of July 3, 1926, which lets a judge order a subpoena to be delivered by a U.S. consul abroad, to permit seizure of the witness’s U.S. property as security, and to impose large fines for refusal, violated the Constitution. The Court held the law valid. It said citizenship creates duties to the United States that justify compelling a citizen abroad to respond. Service by a consul was a permissible method of notice, the seizure of property was a provisional remedy tied to the contempt claim, and contempt proceedings of this kind are a distinct process that need only provide suitable notice and an opportunity to be heard. Challenges under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were rejected on the grounds explained in the opinion.

Real world impact

The result affirms that U.S. courts may use consular service to summon American witnesses abroad, may secure potential fines by seizing property in the United States, and may punish refusal to obey after notice and hearing. The decrees were affirmed, so the statute stands as applied in these cases.