The Principle of Jurisdiction: The Nationality Principle

Case: Blackmer v. United States (1932)

284 U.S. 421, 52 S.Ct. 252, 76 L.Ed. 375

Facts: Harry M. Blackmer was a US citizen, and resident of Paris, France.

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, after being subpoenaed, and was fined. Blackmer challenged the fine under
the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Holding/Reasoning: Court affirmed the conviction and fine. A proceeding to

punish for contempt of court did not require petitioner's presence in order to
satisfy due process, since there had been suitable notice and an opportunity to be
heard on the contempt charges. Moreover, the power of Congress to provide,
legislatively, for the service of subpoenas on American citizens outside the
United States derived from the fact that the United States possessed the power
inherent in sovereignty to require the return to this country of a citizen,
resident elsewhere, whenever the public interest required it, and to penalize him
in case of refusal.

Notes:

· What was Blackmer's role in criminal proceeding? - witness

○ If he was the Def, as an American citizen, there would be a diff basis for
jurisdiction (territoriality if he committed crime in US)
· US says there's a nationality principle.
○ But there are some situations where we wouldn’t extend nationality
○ But here, US says there are overriding principles, why US can extend its
jurisprudential arm to elsewhere