In the case of Blackmer v. United States, 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a contempt of court conviction against Harry M. Blackmer who refused to return from France in order to testify as a witness in an American criminal trial despite being subpoenaed by the government. The court ruled that even though he was living abroad, as an American citizen he still owed allegiance to his country and could be penalized for not complying with its laws or judicial orders such as subpoenas issued under them. This ruling established that U.S citizens residing overseas are subject to U.S jurisdiction and can face penalties if they refuse lawful orders from their home country's courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Blackmer v. United States, Justice Stone argued that a U.S. citizen residing abroad should not be penalized for refusing to return to the U.S. to testify in court proceedings. He contended that while Congress has the power to compel testimony from citizens within its jurisdiction, it does not have such authority over those living outside of it unless they voluntarily choose to enter it or are found there by chance during their travels. The majority's ruling, he believed, was an unwarranted extension of Congressional power and infringed upon individual liberties protected under due process clause of Fifth Amendment as well as international law principles respecting territorial sovereignty of other nations where American citizens might reside.