Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
|Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer|
|Court||Supreme Court of the United States|
|Citation||343 U.S. 579 (1952)|
|Date decided||June 2, 1952|
In 1947, over the veto of Harry Truman, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act to make labor unions weaker. Nonetheless, the Taft-Hartley Act had expressly prohibited seizures of companies (nationalization) to resolve labor disputes with unions.
Justices Jackson, Burton, Douglas, and Clark argued that Truman has acted unconstitutionally because Congress had expressly declined to authorize the seizure of the steel mills.President Truman believed that during the emergency of the Korean War in the 1950s, he acted to circumvent the halting of the steel production which was needed for the war.
Because Congress had considered this issue and laws existed that allowed for other methods of resolving these issues, the President misused his power.Perhaps if the Congress was silent on the issue it would invite Presidential action since the emergency would require immediate, decisive action.
Emergencies do not create power, but merely mark occasions when power should be executed.The Congress is entrusted with lawmaking powers, and the branch of government that has the power to pay compensation for a seizure is the only one able to authorize a seizure or make lawful one that the President has effected.
We are involved in Korea, and a work stoppage would immediately jeopardize and imperil our national defense. The President immediately informed Congress of his action and clearly stated his intention to abide by the legislative will.This case is also known as the Steel Seizure Case.