Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1952 · Constitutional Law

separation of powersexecutive powerwar powersconstitutional lawexecutive powerseparation of powersArticle IArticle II

Facts

A labor dispute between steel companies and their employees threatened a nationwide strike beginning April 9, 1952. Believing that a stoppage in steel production would jeopardize national defense because steel was indispensable to weapons and war materials, the President issued Executive Order 10340 directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the steel mills. The Secretary issued possession orders and directed company presidents to continue operating the mills for the United States. The companies complied under protest and sued, alleging that the seizure was authorized by neither statute nor the Constitution.

Issue

Whether the Court should decide the constitutional validity of the President's seizure order at the preliminary injunction stage, and, if so, whether the President had constitutional or statutory authority to order the seizure and operation of the steel mills.

Rule

The President's power to issue an order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. The President cannot exercise lawmaking power; his duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed does not authorize him to make or execute his own policy in place of Congress's, and the Commander in Chief power does not authorize seizure of private property to settle labor disputes and keep production going.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A nationwide strike by workers at privately owned fertilizer plants threatens to interrupt production of chemicals used by the military. The President orders the Secretary of Industry to take possession of the plants and keep them operating, but no federal statute expressly or impliedly authorizes such a seizure.

Is the seizure most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority's rule is that the President's power must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. A presidential order cannot stand merely because the President believes it necessary to avert a grave national problem. Here there is no statutory authorization, and the President is effectively creating policy by ordering seizure of private industry. The Fifth Amendment does not categorically forbid takings; the defect is lack of presidential authority.