Blackmer v. United States.

Citation. 284 U.S. 421 (1932)

Brief Fact Summary. For his failure to respond to subpoenas served upon him in France which required
his appearance in the United States, Blackmer (D) was found to be in contempt of court.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. There must be due process for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam.

Facts. Blackmer (D), a U.S. (P) citizen who was residing in France, was served subpoenas to appear in
court as a witness in a criminal trial in the U.S. Contempt proceedings were initiated against Blackmer (D)
when he failed to respond to the subpoenas and he was found guilty and fined. Blackmer (D) appealed on
the ground that the federal statute was unconstitutional.

Facts
Harry M. Blackmer (defendant) is a United States citizen but a resident of Paris, France. The United
States government (plaintiff) issued two subpoenas requesting Blackmer appear as a witness on its
behalf at a criminal trial. Blackmer failed to appear, and two separate contempt actions were instituted
against him in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The contempt actions were based on a
United States statute which provides that whenever the attendance at the trial of a criminal action of a
witness abroad, who is a citizen of the United States or domiciled therein, is desired by the Attorney
General, or any assistant or district attorney acting under him, the judge of the court in which the action is
pending may order a subpoena to issue, to be addressed to a consul of the United States and to be
served by him personally upon the witness with a tender of traveling expenses. Additionally, upon
issuance of the subpoena and failure of the witness to appear, the court may issue an order requiring the
witness to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Once the order is issued, the court
may seize the property of the witness to be held by the United States to satisfy any judgment which might
be rendered against the witness in the proceeding. Service is affected through both personal service on
the witness and through publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the district where the court is
sitting. If, after a hearing, the charge against the witness is sustained, the court may find the witness guilty
of contempt and impose upon him a fine to be satisfied by the seized property. Blackmer was found guilty
of contempt on both counts, and a fine of $30,000 was imposed in both cases. The fine was to be
satisfied out of Blackmers property which had been seized by the court. On appeal, Blackmer objected to
the statute supporting his contempt convictions on the ground that it violated the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Blackmer stated five arguments in support of this contention. Most notably, he
argued that the statute did not comply with due process requirements under the United States
Constitution. The court of appeals affirmed the contempt decrees, and the United States Supreme Court
granted certiorari.

Issue. Must there be due process for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam?

Held. (Hughes, C.J). Yes. There must be due process for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam.
The court may adjudge the witness guity of contempt if the witness fails to comply with the court order.
Congress acted pursuant to its authority in enacting the statute and it could prescribe a penalty to enforce
it. Affirmed.

Discussion. The statute was not found to be unconstitutional by the Court. Blackmer (D) alleged that there
was inadequate notice, but since he still retained his U.S. citizenship, he was still subject to the U.S.
authorities.
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)

Procedural History:
Appeal by a state from the refusal of another state to admit one of its nationals.

Overview:
Nottebohm (P), a German citizen, lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years and applied
for Liechtenstein (P) citizenship one month after the start of World War II.
Nottebohm (P) was a German by birth. Nottebohm (P) lived in Guatemala (D) for 34
years, retaining his German citizenship and family and business ties with it. One
month after the outbreak of World War II, Nottebohm {P) applied for citizenship with
Liechtenstein {P), a neutral country. Nottebohm (P) had no ties with Liechtenstein
{P) and intended to remain in Guatemala (D). Liechtenstein (P) approved the
naturalization application and impliedly waived its three-year residency
requirement. Nottebohm (P) briefly visited Liechtenstein (P) and, on his return to
Guatemala (D), was refused admittance, being deemed a German national.
Nottebohms (P) Liechtenstein (P) citizenship was not honored. Liechtenstein {P)
brought an action before the International Court to compel Guatemala (D) to
recognize Nottebohm (P) as one of its nationals. Guatemala (D) challenged the
validity of Nottebohms (P) citizenship, the right of Liechtenstein (P) to bring the
action and alleged its belief that Nottebohm (P) remained a German national.

Issue:
Must a nation automatically recognize the citizenship conferred on a party by
another nation?

Outcome:
-No. As a general rule, matters concerning citizenship are solely the concern of the
granting nation. It alone will normally bear the burdens or attain the benefits from
the conferral of citizenship on a party. However, the conferring state may not
require other states to automatically accept its designation unless it has acted in
conformity with the general aim of forging a genuine bond between it and its
national. Here, no relationship exists between Liechtenstein {P) and Nottebohm (P).
There was never an intent to reside in Liechtenstein (P), no business or family
connections, no acceptance of traditions and the severing of old ties, etc. The
change in nationality was a mere convenience/subterfuge mandated by the war.
Under such circumstances, Guatemala (D) was not forced to recognize it. Dismissed.

Rule:
while nationality conferred on a party is normally only the concern of that nation,
such nationality may be disregarded by other states where it is clear that it was a
mere device/subterfuge.

Analysis:
A state putting forth a claim must establish a locus standi for that purpose. This is
almost exclusively a showing of nationality of the claimant The real claimant must
have continuously and without interruption from the time of the injury to the making
of an award been a national of the state making the claim and must not have been
a national of the state against whom the claim has been filed. International Law 347
(8th Ed. 1955) Vol. 1.
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)

Brief Fact Summary. A month after the start of World War II, Nottebohn (P), a
German citizen who had lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years, applied for
Liechtenstein (P) citizenship.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Nationality may be disregarded by other states where it is

clear that it was a mere device since the nationality conferred on a party is normally
only the concerns of that nation

Facts. Nottebohn (P), a German by birth, lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years,
retaining his German citizenship and family and business ties with it. He however
applied for Liechtenstein (P) citizenship a month after the outbreak of World War II.
Nottebohm (P) had no ties with Liechtenstein but intended to remain in Guatemala.
The naturalization application was approved by Liechtenstein and impliedly waived
its three-year. After this approval, Nottebohm (P) travelled to Liechtenstein and
upon his return to Guatemala (D), he was refused entry because he was deemed to
be a German citizen. His Liechtenstein citizenship was not honored. Liechtenstein
(P) thereby filed a suit before the International Court to compel Guatemala (D) to
recognize him as one of its national. Guatemala (D) challenged the validity of
Nottebohms (P) citizenship, the right of Liechtenstein (P) to bring the action and
alleged its belief that Nottebohm (P) remained a German national.

Issue. Must nationality be disregarded by other states where it is clear that it was a
mere device since the nationality conferred on a party is normally the concerns of
that nation?

Held. NO. issues relating to citizenship are solely the concern of the granting nation.
This is the general rule. But it does not mean that other states will automatically
accept the conferring states designation unless it has acted in conformity with the
general aim of forging a genuine bond between it and its national aim. In this case,
there was no relationship between Liechtenstein (P) and Nottebohm (P). the change
of nationality was merely a subterfuge mandated by the war. Under this
circumstance, Guatemala (D) was not forced to recognize it. Dismissed.

Discussion. A state putting forth a claim must establish a locus standi for that
purpose. Without interruption and continuously from the time of the injury to the
making of an award been a national of the state making the claim and must not
have been a national of the state against whom the claim has been filed.
International law 347 (8th Ed. 1955) Vol.1.
MEJOFF VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
90 Phil. 70 (1951) (Constitutional Law Right to Life and Liberty, Aliens)

FACTS: Herein petitioner, an alien illegally in this country was kept under prolonged
detention while arrangements for his departure are being made filed a petition for
habeas corpus. For two years, the Government has not found ways and means of
deporting the petitioner because no ship nor country would take the latter. It is
insinuated that the petitioner might join or aid the disloyal elements if allowed to be
at large.

ISSUE: Whether or not an alien, not enemy, against whom no charge has been
made other than that their permission to stay has expired, may be detained
indefinitely for as long as the Government is unable to deport him.

HELD: No, a foreign national, not enemy, against whom no criminal charges have
been formally made or judicial order issued, may not indefinitely be kept in
detention. He also has the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights
as applied to human beings. Petitioner is ordered to be released upon the condition
of being under surveillance and exact bail in a reasonable amount with sufficient
sureties. The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at
large does not justify prolonged detention.

Note: Boris Mejoff, an alien of Russian descent was brought to this country from
Shanghai as a Japanese spy and was arrested upon liberation of this country from
the Japanese regime.

Facts

Boris Mejoff, a Russian, was captured as a Japanese spy by the US Army Counter
Intelligence Corps on March 18, 1948. He was turned over to the Phil
Commonwealth Government for appropriate disposition. His case was decided on by
the Board of Commissioners of Immigration who declared him as an illegal alien.
The Board ordered his immediate deportation. In the meantime, we was placed in
prison awaiting the ship that will take him back home to Russia. Two Russian boats
have been requested to bring him back to Russia but the masters refused as they
had no authority to do so. Two years passed and Mejoff is still under detention
awaiting the ship that will take him home.

This case is a petition for habeas corpus. However, the respondent held that the
Mejoff should stay in temporary detention as it is a necessary step in the process of
exclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens. It further states that is has the right to
do so for a reasonable length of time.
Issue

Whether or not Mejoff should be released from prison awaiting his deportation.

Ruling

The Supreme Court decided that Mejoff be released from custody but be placed
under reasonable surveillance of the immigration authorities to insure that he keep
peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. In the
doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines in its constitution adops the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nations. Also, the
Philippines has joined the United Nations in its Resolution entitled Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in proclaiming that life and liberty and all other
fundamental rights shall be applied to all human beings. The contention that he
remains a threat of to the security of the country is unfounded as Japan and the US
or the Phils are no longer at war.

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala
Citation. 630 F.2D 876 (2D Cir. 1980)

Brief Fact Summary. A suit against Pena-Irala (D) on the premise that he had
tortured to death the decedent of Filartiga (P), was filed by Filartiga (P).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute, torture may be
considered to violate law of nations.

Facts. A suit claiming that Pena-Irala (D) had tortured Filartigas (P) decedent to
death while he was a police Inspector General, was brought by Filartiga (P). All
parties were Paraguayan citizens. Jurisdiction was based on the Allen Tort Statute,
28 U.S.C. S 1350, which provided jurisdiction for tort committed in violation of the
law of nations. The case was dismissed by the district court for lack of jurisdiction
to which Filartiga (P) appealed.

Issue. For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute, may torture be considered as a violation
of the law of nations?

Held. (Judge not stated in casebook excerpt). Yes. For purpose of the Allen Tort
Statute, torture may be considered to violate law of nations. The prohibition against
torture has become part of customary international law. Various United Nations
declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1975
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture further portrays the fact
that prohibition against torture has become part of customary international law.
Torture has been officially renounced in the vast majority of nations and this is the
reason why this court concluded that torture violates the law of nations.

Discussion. It is not new for many members of the United Nations to make
pronouncements and not be pronouncements into action. It is no secret that torture
is still widely practiced if not by a majority of countries then in a significant manner.
Actual practice, and not U.N. declarations have been argued by commentators as
what constitute international law.
On April 6, 1979, the suit was brought by an alien residing in the United States
charging a former official of Paraguay then isiting the United States! "he
complaint alleged torture of the plaintiff#s brother leading to his death! "he court of
appeals ruled that deliberate torture perpetrated by a person in estedwith official
authority was a iolation of customary law supporting the $urisdiction of the
district courts oer %a ci il action by an alien for a tort only, committed in
iolation of the law of nations!% "he court further declared that %indeed,
for purposes of ciil liability, the torturer has become li&e the pirate and sla e
trader before him
hostis humani generis
, an enemy of all man&ind%! "he court found that torture perpetrated by aperson
inested with official authority iolates uni ersally accepted human rights norms,
regardless of thenationality of the parties!!
FACTS OF THE CASE:

"he 'ilartiga are citi(ens of the )epublc of Paraguay! "hey alleged that their
17year old son*oelito was &idnapped and tortured to death by +orberto Pena-
rala in Paraguay! 'il.rtiga claims this wasdone in retaliation for his father#s
political acti ities and beliefs! 'il.rtiga brought a criminal case
inParaguayan court, but his attorney was arrested , threatened with
death, and supposedly disbarred without $ust cause! 'our years later, another
man confessed to the murder, claiming he found *oelito andhis wife together,
and said the crime was one of passion, but he was ne er con icted, and
also theeidence showed that *oelito#s death %was the result of professional
methods of torture!% -n 197/, 0olly 'il.rtiga came to the US and applied for political
asylum! hile Pe2a also enteredthe United States under a isitor3s isa but
remained in the US beyond the term of their isas! 0olly learned of Pena
and reported it to the -mmigration and +aturali(ation Ser ice, Pe2a then was
arrested for s t a y i n g p a s t t h e e 4 p i r a t i o n o f h i s i s a ! h e n P e 2 a w a s
t a & e n t o t h e 5 r o o & l y n + a y a r d p e n d i n g deportation, 0olly lodged a
ciil complaint in U!S! courts for *oelito#s wrongful death by torture!"he 'ilartiga
argued that Pe2a#s actions had iolated wrongful death statutes, the United
+ationsharter, the Uniersal 0eclaration of 8uman )ights , the American
0eclaration of the )ights and 0uties of an, and other customary international law!
Pe2a claimed the U!S! courts had $urisdiction to hear the case under the Alien "ort
Statute, whichgrants district courts original $urisdiction to hear tort claims brought
by an alien that hae been %committedin iolation of the law of nations or a
treaty of the United States%! Although the district court initially stayed Pe2a3s
deportation, it ultimately granted Pe2a3s motionto dismiss the complaint and
allowed his return to Paraguay, ruling that, although the proscription
of t o r t u r e h a d b e c o m e
a norm of customary international law,
the court was bound to follow appellate precedents which narrowly limited the
function of international law only to relations between states!
ISSUES:

hether act of torture is part of international concern, thus, under the

customary internationallaw:

hether a iolation of the law of nations arises only when there has been ; a
iolation by one or more indi iduals of those standards, rules or customs if
<a= aff ecting the relationship between states or between an indiidual and a
foreign state and <b= used by those states for their commongood and>or in
dealing per se?