Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.

Sawyer

Relevant Facts: The country was at war with Korea. The war effort called for more
weapons, and they were made from steel. Steel industry demanded an increase for all the
extra work it was doing. In relation to some concerns from the Senate, a 3-way dispute
broke out between the steel union, the companies and the Government, as the companies
didn't want to spend extra monies for the increase, and the Government resisted.

Union announces it was going to strike. President Truman didn't want to invoke the Taft-
Hartley Act of '47, the Selective Service Act of '48, or Title II of the Defense Production
Act of 1950, which all gave the executive branch extensive authority to regulate wages,
settle disputes and run the shops if it had to. And that's what Truman did, as he authorized
Sec. of Commerce Sawyer to take possession of the steel industry and keep the mills
operating to provide goods for a national emergency. Arguments come to this Court.

Issue: Under constitutional law, does the President of the United States have executive
power to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nation's steel mills when he
uses the war powers, executive authority vested in him in article 2 of the constitution, or
any implied powers gleaned therein?

Holding: No. Although the separation of powers is more blurred then definite in scope
and action, the President has no such explicit or implicit authority in which to enact such
action.

Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Mills say this act should've been done by the
legislature. The Government says they were tying to avoid a national crisis. There is no
explicit statute or act (of Congress) which authorizes the President to act in such a
manner. The only 2 statutes which authorize acquiring personal and real property are not
met here. Not only are they unauthorized, but Congress refused to act in such a manner to
begin with, in regards to Taft-Hartley's legislative history. Congress wanted to ensure a
process of mediation and investigation of claims, and their issue in public reports.

If the President could do this, it would have to found somewhere explicitly in the
Constitution, or implicitly in some historical context or foundation. The reliance is the
rule stated (below), but has nothing to do with the "war powers." It would not be faithful
to the constitutional system. Nor is there any constitutional provision which grants such
an action either. Article I, however, clearly spells out who has such responsibility:
Congress.

The President cannot order policy; he can only suggest it, to which Congress can then
legislate upon it. Congress can approve any proposal for regulation, policy, settlement of
disputes, wages, and working conditions. None of this is delegated to the President. This
may have happened in this past, but this doesn't mean the right to limit this extension of
authority is not available. A textual approach of the Constitution says the President's
powers are curbed in this extension.
Rule: Section 1 of Article II. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America.

Section 2 of Article II of Constitution: "The President shall be commander in chief of the

Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the
principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the
duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Important Dicta: N/A.

Dissenting: (Justices Vinson, Reed, and Minton):Many presidents have taken such action
before, most notably Lincoln (Civil War, naval blockade, Emancipation Proclamation),
Hayes and Cleveland (authorize use of troops to settle strikes), all w/o state or legislative
authority. T.R. thought about it. Why can't this President do it too?

Concurring: (Justice Frankfurter):Traditional ways give meaning to the text. FDR's

actions during the Great Depression resulted in all sorts of extensions of the executive
authority, but his authority was not violative, as 3 laws were already enacted by Congress
when FDR enacted his policy, and 6 more were only enacted after Congress declared
war, thereby falling under the "war powers."

(Justice Jackson): There is no definite proof from authority on this issue; stuff has to be
gleaned from previous actions. Since government is not definite, and sometimes the three
areas blend in with one another, there are three general areas which executive authority
work with other powers:

1. When President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress.

2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of

authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone in which
he and Congress may have concurrent authority. When this is the case, the test depends
on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract
theories of law.

3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of
Congress, this is the lowest level he can extend his authority.

This is a category three action. If the US's commander-in-chief argument is applied, then
the executive branch could use its authority over any business/industry under the guise of
the relatedness. If their inherent powers are accepted, this Court is essentially making up
law. There still is a distinction between the President's paper powers and his real powers,
but the Court here will not stretch to such a level where his implied powers are so
great. The President is supposed to be checked.