Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 2/15/1932

Blackmer v. United States

Citations

  • 284 U.S. 421
  • 52 S. Ct. 252
  • 76 L. Ed. 375
  • 1932 U.S. LEXIS 882

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1932 United States Supreme Court case

Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421 (1932), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States .[1] Harry M. Blackmer was a United States citizen resident in Paris . Blackmer was found guilty of contempt by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for refusing to appear as a witness for the United States in a criminal trial, which was related to the Teapot Dome scandal , after being subpoenaed .

Blackmer was subsequently fined $30,000 and the costs of the court. Blackmer challenged the fine under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment .

The Court unanimously ruled against Blackmer, with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes delivering the judgment and opinion of the Court and Justice Owen Josephus Roberts not participating.

Chief Justice Hughes, in delivering the opinion of the Court, stated "[n]or can it be doubted that the United States possesses the power inherent in sovereignty to require the return to this country of a citizen, resident elsewhere, whenever the public interest requires it, and to penalize him in case of refusal." Also, "[i]t is also beyond controversy that one of the duties which the citizen owes to his government is to support the administration of justice by attending its courts and giving his testimony whenever he is properly summoned."

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackmer_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: See also")
]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackmer_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. ↑ Dickinson, Edwin D. (1932). "The Blackmer Case" . American Journal of International Law. 26 (2): 351–353. doi :10.2307/2189359 . ISSN  0002-9300 . JSTOR  2189359 .

Further reading

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackmer_v._United_States&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Further reading")
]

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackmer_v._United_States&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackmer_v._United_States&oldid=1351282532 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Search

Search

Blackmer v. United States

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that § 1783 comports with due process by giving a citizen living abroad notice and an opportunity to challenge such a subpoena
  • finding that the United States possesses inherent sovereign power to punish its nationals abroad for violations of United States law
  • upholding contempt against U.S. citizen residing in France for failure to respond to D.C. Supreme Court subpoena
  • rejecting due process challenge to a contempt citation against a United States citizen who was domiciled abroad for failing to respond to a subpoena
  • rejecting due process challenge to a contempt citation against a United States citizen who was domiciled abroad for failing to respond to a subpoena
  • rejecting due process challenge to a contempt citation against a United States citizen who was domiciled abroad for failing to respond to a subpoena

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Justice'Hughes, Roberts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

295 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Blackmer v. United States

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.