Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 713.0

524US2

Unit: $U97

[09-06-00 19:37:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN

668

UNITED STATES v. BALSYS

Syllabus

contention, general personal testimonial integrity or privacy is not a
reliable guide to the Clause’s scope of protection. Fifth Amendment
tradition offers, in practice, a conditional protection of testimonial pri-
vacy. Since the judiciary could not recognize fear of foreign prosecu-
tion and at the same time preserve the Government’s existing rights to
seek testimony in exchange for immunity (because domestic courts could
not enforce the immunity abroad), extending the privilege would change
the balance of private and governmental interests that has been ac-
cepted for as long as there has been Fifth Amendment doctrine. Balsys
also argues that Murphy’s policy catalog supports application of the
privilege in order to prevent the Government from overreaching to fa-
cilitate foreign criminal prosecutions in a spirit of “cooperative inter-
nationalism.” Murphy recognized “cooperative federalism”—the team-
work of state and national ofﬁcials to ﬁght interstate crime—but only
to underscore the signiﬁcance of the Court’s holding that a federal court
could no longer ignore fear of state prosecution when ruling on a privi-
lege claim. Since in this case there is no counterpart to Malloy, impos-
ing the Fifth Amendment beyond the National Government, there is no
premise in Murphy for appealing to “cooperative internationalism” by
analogy to “cooperative federalism.” The analogy must, instead, be to
the pre-Murphy era when the States were not bound by the privilege.
Even if “cooperative federalism” and “cooperative internationalism” did
support expanding the privilege’s scope, Balsys has not shown that the
likely costs and beneﬁts justify such expansion. Cooperative conduct
between the United States and foreign nations may one day develop to
a point at which fear of foreign prosecution could be recognized under
the Clause as traditionally understood, but Balsys has presented no in-
terest rising to such a level of cooperative prosecution. Pp. 690–700.

119 F. 3d 122, reversed and remanded.

Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and Stevens, O(cid:146)Connor, and Kennedy, JJ., joined, and in which
Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Stevens, J.,
ﬁled a concurring opinion, post, p. 700. Ginsburg, J., ﬁled a dissenting
opinion, post, p. 701. Breyer, J., ﬁled a dissenting opinion, in which
Ginsburg, J., joined, post, p. 702.

Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause
for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solici-
tor General Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General
Keeney, Barbara McDowell, and Joseph C. Wyderko.