## Facts

- Robert E. Meyer was a U.S. attorney who represented Zemco Corporation in seeking trademark registration in Saudi Arabia.
- To assist with the Saudi filing, Meyer worked through a Saudi Arabian firm that sent him an “Authorization of Agent” form.
- The form included a section titled “Creed Declaration,” which required a declaration that the client had not engaged in any of seven listed actions associated with boycott principles applied in Saudi Arabia (including matters tied to the Arab boycott of Israel).
- In 1978, Meyer completed the form, including the creed declaration, and mailed it as part of the trademark-registration effort.
- The Saudi Arabian embassy later requested that the form be authenticated by the U.S. Department of State.
- The State Department refused to authenticate the document, stating that the form related to the Arab boycott of Israel and that U.S. law barred U.S. persons from providing certain boycott-related information.
- Meyer then arranged for an associate to obtain authentication from the United States Arab Chamber of Commerce instead of the State Department.
- The Saudi authorities rejected the submission because it lacked State Department authentication, and attempts to secure the trademark registration were eventually abandoned.
- The U.S. Department of Commerce charged Meyer with violations of antiboycott regulations issued under the Export Administration Act (EAA), alleging (1) furnishing boycott-related information and (2) failing to report the receipt of a boycott-related request.
- An administrative law judge assessed a $5,000 civil penalty, and the Department of Commerce affirmed the agency decision.
- Meyer refused to pay, and the United States filed a civil action to collect the penalty; the district court granted summary judgment for the government.
- Meyer appealed the enforcement judgment to the First Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the Department of Commerce’s antiboycott regulations under the Export Administration Act validly authorized penalties for furnishing boycott-related information and for failing to report boycott-related requests.
2. Whether Meyer’s completion and transmission of the “Creed Declaration” constituted prohibited “furnishing” of boycott-related information under the regulations.
3. Whether Meyer violated the reporting requirement by failing to report the receipt of the boycott-related request embodied in the Saudi form and related communications.
4. Whether applying the antiboycott regulations to Meyer’s conduct violated constitutional protections, including due process (fair notice/vagueness) and First Amendment principles.
5. Whether the administrative record supported the agency’s findings and justified summary judgment enforcing the civil penalty.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment enforcing the $5,000 civil penalty.
- The court held that the antiboycott regulations were a valid exercise of the Commerce Department’s authority under the Export Administration Act to discourage U.S. participation in unsanctioned foreign boycotts.
- The court concluded that Meyer’s completion and forwarding of the creed declaration fell within the regulations’ prohibition on furnishing boycott-related information in response to a boycott-related request.
- The court concluded that Meyer’s receipt of the boycott-related request triggered a duty to report, and that the agency could treat his failure to report as a regulatory violation.
- The court rejected Meyer’s constitutional challenges, finding the rules sufficiently clear to give notice and treating the restrictions as regulation of conduct in foreign commerce with, at most, incidental effects on speech.
- The court determined that the agency’s findings were supported by the administrative record and that there was no genuine dispute of material fact barring enforcement through summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- The Export Administration Act authorizes the Department of Commerce to issue regulations discouraging U.S. persons from cooperating with foreign boycotts not supported by the United States.
- A boycott-related certification form that asks a U.S. person to confirm the absence of Israel-related ties or boycott-prohibited conduct can constitute a “request” for boycott-related information under antiboycott regulations.
- Completing and transmitting such a certification in response to a boycott-related request may qualify as “furnishing” boycott-related information prohibited by regulation.
- Antiboycott rules may require reporting the receipt of boycott-related requests, and a recipient can violate the regulations by failing to file the required report.
- In a civil action to collect an administratively assessed penalty, courts review the administrative record and will uphold the agency’s decision when supported by substantial evidence and based on a reasonable reading of the regulations.
- Constitutional objections to antiboycott rules may fail when the rules provide fair notice and operate as foreign-commerce regulation rather than viewpoint-based punishment of expression.

## Conclusion

United States v. Meyer, 864 F.2d 214 (1988), upheld the government’s enforcement of a $5,000 civil penalty against an attorney who completed and transmitted a Saudi “Creed Declaration” tied to the Arab boycott of Israel and who did not report the boycott-related request to the Department of Commerce. The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States, sustaining the validity and application of the EAA antiboycott regulations and rejecting Meyer’s statutory and constitutional challenges based on the administrative record.
