Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.

Sawyer Case Brief Summary

Summary of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153
(1952).

The Steel Seizure Case

Facts
The Korean war effort increased the demand for steel. Disputes arose between steel industry
management and labor that culminated in an announcement of a strike by the union. President
Truman authorized Secretary of Commerce Sawyer to take possession of the steel industry and
keep the mills operating.

Issue
Does the President of the United States have executive power under the war powers
clause of the U.S. Constitution, or any implied powers gleaned therefrom, to authorize
the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nations steel mills?

Holding and Rule (Black)

No. The President does not have implicit or explicit executive power under the war
powers clause of the U.S. Constitution, or any implied powers gleaned therefrom, to
authorize the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nations steel mills.

The court held that there was no explicit statute or act of Congress which authorized the
President to act in such a manner. The only two statutes which authorized the acquisition of
personal and real property were not met here. Not only were such acts unauthorized, Congress
specifically refused to grant such authorization. The court held that in order for the President to
have this authority, it must be found somewhere explicitly in the Constitution, or implicitly in
some historical context or foundation.

The President cannot order policy; he can only suggest it. Congress can approve any proposal for
regulation, policy, settlement of disputes, wages, and working conditions. None of this is
delegated to the President. Under a textual approach to interpreting the Constitution the
Presidents powers are curbed in this extension.

Dissent (Vinson, Reed, and Minton)

Many presidents have taken such action before, most notably Lincoln (Civil War, naval
blockade, Emancipation Proclamation), Hayes and Cleveland (authorization of the use of the
military to settle strikes) without state or legislative authority.
Concurrence (Frankfurter)
FDRs actions during the Great Depression resulted in extensions of executive authority, but his
authority was not violative of the Constitution. Three laws had already been enacted by Congress
when FDR enacted his policy, and six others were only enacted after Congress declared war,
thereby falling under the war powers.

Concurrence (Jackson)
In determining whether the executive has authority, there are three general circumstances:

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, the
Presidents authority is at its greatest.
2. When the President acts in the 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, the authority of the ]President is at its lowest.

Justice Jackson stated that this case falls into category three. If the Presidents argument were
accepted the executive branch could exert its authority over any business or industry.

Notes
The most important part of this case is the three part test set forth in Justice Jacksons
concurrence. This case is also cited as Youngstown v. Sawyer and as Youngstown Sheet Tube v.
Sawyer.