Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer

Why is the case important?

Question

Did the President have the constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills?

Conclusion

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue such an order. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President’s military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes. The Court argued that the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”

Advocates:
John W. Davis for the petitioners in No. 744 and the respondents in No. 745, Philip B. Perlman Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the respondent in No. 744 and the petitioner in No. 745, Arthur J. Goldberg as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court, Clifford C. O’Brien as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court, Harold C. Heiss as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court
Location:
U.S. Department of Labor
Respondent:
Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce
Petitioner:
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company
Vinson Court
Citation:
343 US 579 (1952)
Argued:
May 12 – 13, 1952
Decided:
Jun 2, 1952