E.

CHECKS AND BALANCES (d) The Order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's
U.S. Supreme Court military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
Argued May 12-13, 1952 (e) Nor can the Order be sustained because of the several provisions of Article
Decided June 2, 1952* II which grant executive power to the President.

FACTS: (f) The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the
Following a United Nations resolution, President Harry Truman brought the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times.
United States into the Korean War after North Korea invaded South Korea.
There was no congressional declaration of war to support his action. To further (g) Even if it be true that other Presidents have taken possession of private
the war effort, the government relied on defense contractors that in turn relied business enterprises without congressional authority in order to settle labor
on the steel industry. Truman created a Wage Stabilization Board that was disputes, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to
designed to minimize labor disputes while curbing the inflation of prices and make the laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers vested by the
wages. During this time, however, the United Steel Workers of America Constitution "in the Government of the United States, or any Department or
planned to launch a nationwide strike across all of the major steel producers Officer thereof."
based on the industry's reluctance to grant wage increases without an increase
in prices by the government.
The District Court issued a preliminary injunction restraining the Secretary of
The strike loomed ever closer as both sides showed no interest in Commerce from carrying out the terms of Executive Order No. 10340, 16
compromise. Determined to keep supplies flowing to the troops in Korea, Fed.Reg.
Truman seized the production facilities of the steel companies so that they
could be operated by the federal government under their current management.
There were several alternatives to this aggressive move. The government
could have used the Taft-Hartley Act to declare a national emergency and
forestall the union's strike, but the fault for the dispute seemed to lie more with
the industry than the union. The government also could have used the recently
passed Selective Service Act, but the process required by this law seemed too
cumbersome for the demands of the time-sensitive situation. For the same
reasons, Truman relied on the inherent powers of the President rather than
seeking special Congressional authorization. These decisions would prove
costly.

After Truman announced the seizure to the national media, the steel industry
sought a temporary restraining order from a federal district judge. He denied
the motion on equitable grounds, but a different judge issued a preliminary
injunction after a possible tactical error by an assistant Attorney General, which
suggested that the government supported a spectacularly broad interpretation
of executive power. (Not even Truman likely agreed with this view.)

Once the government was ordered to surrender its control of the steel plants,
the union began the strike. On appeal, however, the government received a
stay of the injunction pending review by the Supreme Court. Negotiations
stalled after the court issued the stay, since it also barred increasing wages
while review was pending and left the steel industry with no motivation to meet
the union's demands.

ISSUE:
W/N the order of seizures of private property by the executive branch is valid.

HELD:
Unless based on specific authority from the Constitution or Congress, seizures
of private property by the executive branch are invalid.

1. Although this case has proceeded no further than the preliminary injunction
stage, it is ripe for determination of the constitutional validity of the Executive
Order on the record presented.

(a) Under prior decisions of this Court, there is doubt as to the right to recover
in the Court of Claims on account of properties unlawfully taken by government
officials for public use.

(b) Seizure and governmental operation of these going businesses were bound
to result in many present and future damages of such nature as to be difficult,
if not incapable, of measurement.

2. The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, and it cannot stand.

(a) There is no statute which expressly or impliedly authorizes the President to

take possession of this property as he did here.

(b) In its consideration of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, Congress refused to

authorize governmental seizures of property as a method of preventing work
stoppages and settling labor disputes.

(c) Authority of the President to issue such an order in the circumstances of

this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his powers under Article II of
the Constitution.