Youngstown Co. vs. Sawyer.

Authors Avatar

Youngstown Co. vs. Sawyer

        The dispute Youngstown Co. vs. Sawyer arose in April 1952. At this time President Truman ordered his secretary of commerce, Sawyer,  to seize nation’s steel mills. However his order was not based on any statue. President Truman decided not to ask congress for any special legislation and seized the companies based on his emergency powers as a commander in chief.

        In Youngstown Co. vs. Sawyer, the steel companies did not deny the government the power to take over the properties but claimed that the 1952 seizure was done by the wrong branch of government and was therefore unconstitutional. The owners of the steel companies claimed that, ordering the seizure, president violated the constitution, which gives him executive, but not legislative power. According to steel companies, president, ordering the seizure, used the legislative power which is held by congress. On the other hand, the government held that president’s order was necessary to avoid political catastrophe and his decision was made during the time of serious emergency therefore the president acted within his jurisdiction as the Commander in Chief. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court through the lower courts which ruled in favor of the steel companies. Finally the Supreme Court was left with the following question to answer: Did President Truman have constitutional power to order the seizure and operation of the steel companies?  In a 6-to-3 decision the court ruled that president did not have such a authority.

        The opinion of the court was delivered by justice Black and the rationale behind this decision consists of six different points that the justices make.  First, in its majority opinion, the court expressed its belief that president’s order has o be based on the law, act or statue that was previously made by the legislative branch of government (congress.) Since, in the case of president Truman’s order no such statue was previously made, the court claimed that president’s actions were not justified.

Join now!

        Secondly, in 1947, the Congress rejected the Taft-Hartley Act, which would authorize the government to seize properties during the times of emergency.  In other words, the seizure of properties to prevent work stoppages was not only not authorized by Congress but also rejected by it. I this light, president Truman’s actions was contradictory to the will of Congress.

        Another argument of the Supreme Court, which opposed, Truman’s actions was that president’s power to issue the seizure cannot be found in the Constitution. In this argument, the court expressed it’s belief that in order for the president to have an ...

This is a preview of the whole essay