Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
343 U.S. 579 · 1952-06-02
The President cannot seize the steel mills; Jackson's three-zone concurrence becomes the framework.
Edition: U. S. Reports, bound volume
Source: U. S. Reports, volume 343, at 579 (Library of Congress) · transcription: Caselaw Access Project
Voices: Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. · Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring. · Mr. Justice Douglas, concurring. · Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in the judgment and opinion of the Court. · Mr. Justice Burton, concurring in both the opinion and judgment of the Court. My position may be summarized as follows: · Mr. Justice Clark, concurring in the judgment of the Court. · Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, with whom Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton join, dissenting.
We are asked to decide whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation’s steel mills. The mill owners argue that the President’s order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress and not to the President. The Government’s position is that the order was made on findings of the President that his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel…
In the latter part of 1951, a dispute arose between the steel companies and their employees over terms and conditions that should be included in new collective bargaining agreements. Long-continued conferences failed to resolve the dispute. On December 18,1951, the employees’ representative, United Steelworkers of America, C. I. O., gave notice of an intention to strike when the existing bargaining agreements expired on December 31. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service then intervened in an effort to get labor and management to agree. This failing, the President on December 22,…Read it in the reading room ›