Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952).

The Steel Seizure Case

Facts
The Korean war effort increased the demand for steel. Disputes arose between steel industry management and labor that culminated in
an announcement of a strike by the union. President Truman authorized Secretary of Commerce Sawyer to take possession of the steel
industry and keep the mills operating.
Issue
Does the President of the United States have executive power under the war powers clause of the U.S. Constitution, or any
implied powers gleaned therefrom, to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nations steel mills?
Holding and Rule (Black)
No. The President does not have implicit or explicit executive power under the war powers clause of the U.S. Constitution, or any
implied powers gleaned therefrom, to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nations steel mills.
The court held that there was no explicit statute or act of Congress which authorized the President to act in such a manner. The only
two statutes which authorized the acquisition of personal and real property were not met here. Not only were such acts unauthorized,
Congress specifically refused to grant such authorization. The court held that in order for the President to have this authority, it must be
found somewhere explicitly in the Constitution, or implicitly in some historical context or foundation.
The President cannot order policy; he can only suggest it. Congress can approve any proposal for regulation, policy, settlement of
disputes, wages, and working conditions. None of this is delegated to the President. Under a textual approach to interpreting the
Constitution the Presidents powers are curbed in this extension.
Dissent (Vinson, Reed, and Minton)
Many presidents have taken such action before, most notably Lincoln (Civil War, naval blockade, Emancipation Proclamation), Hayes
and Cleveland (authorization of the use of the military to settle strikes) without state or legislative authority.
Concurrence (Frankfurter)
FDRs actions during the Great Depression resulted in extensions of executive authority, but his authority was not violative of the
Constitution. Three laws had already been enacted by Congress when FDR enacted his policy, and six others were only enacted after
Congress declared war, thereby falling under the war powers.
Concurrence (Jackson)
In determining whether the executive has authority, there are three general circumstances:
1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, the Presidents authority is at its greatest.
2. When the President acts in the absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own
independent powers, but there is a zone in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority. When this is the case, the test
depends on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, the authority of the President is
at its lowest.
Justice Jackson stated that this case falls into category three. If the Presidents argument were accepted the executive branch could
exert its authority over any business or industry.
Notes
The most important part of this case is the three part test set forth in Justice Jacksons concurrence. This case is also cited as
Youngstown v. Sawyer and as Youngstown Sheet Tube v. Sawyer.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 Supreme Court of the United States 1952

Chapter 4 Title The Distribution of Nation Power
Page 359 Topic Presidential Seizure
Quick Notes
President Truman ordered Sawyer (D), the Secretary of Commerce, to take possession of the nation's steel mills and keep
them running on the eve of a steelworkers' strike .

Rule
o The Constitution does not permit the President to seize private property to prevent the consequences of a labor
dispute.

Article I, Section I (Legislative Power)
o All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.

Article I, Section 8 (Necessary and Proper Clause)
o To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all
other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Application
o The president may not order the continued operation of an industry that was otherwise shutdown by a labor dispute.

CONCURRENCE Justice Jackson

Analyze Scope of Presidential Powers (Place Executive acts into three categories)
(1) Acts pursuant to express or implied authorization of Congress,
(2) Acts on which Congress is silent OR there is concurrent authority, and
(3) Acts incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.

Discussion Third Category
o The seizure at issue here falls into the third category.
o It can be sustained only if a seizure power is within the power of the executive and outside the power of Congress.
Emergency Legislation belongs to Congress
o The power to legislate in emergencies belongs to Congress.
o Therefore, the President was not authorized to seize the steel mills.

Maxim Essence of our Government
o Leave to live by no mans leave, underneath the law.
Book Name Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet. ISBN: 978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue
o Whether the President of the United States has the authority to order the seizure of the nation's steel
o mills? No.

Procedure
District
o Court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Secretary from continuing the seizuire of the plaints.
Appellant
o Courts order was stayed.
Supreme
o Affirmed

Facts Discussion Key Phrases Rules
Pl Youngstown
Df Sawyer

Description
o During the Korean War, a dispute
arose between American steel
companies and their employees over
the terms of new collective bargaining
agreements.
o After other efforts to resolve the
dispute failed, the Steelworkers Union
gave notice of a nationwide strike.
o President Harry Truman believed that
a strike in the steel industry would
jeopardize the national defense.
o Steel was an important part of nearly
all weapons and war materials.
o A few hours before the strike was to
begin, Truman issued Executive Order
10340, which directed Sawyer (Df), the
Secretary of Commerce, to take
possession of the steel mills and keep
them running.
o The presidents of the various steel
mills protested but obeyed, staying on
as operating managers for the US.
o Within a few weeks, however, the
steel companies sued Sawyer (Df),
claiming that the seizure was unlawful.
o
(Pl - Mill Owners Argued
o The mill owners argued that Truman's order amounted to lawmaking, a function
delegated to Congress by the Constitution.

(Df - Truman Contended
o Truman contended that he was acting within the scope of his powers as Commander in
Chief of the US Armed Forces.

Justice Black

President Not Authority to Order Seizure
o The President of the United States is not authorized to order the seizure of the nation's
steel mills.
For the President to issue an order (Congressional Act or Constitution)
o Must come from an act of Congress, OR
o Must come from the Constitution.
Congress rejected a seizure technique amendment
o No act of Congress permits such an action, and in debating the Taft-Hartley Act,
Congress rejected an amendment which would have allowed the seizure technique to be
used in labor disputes to prevent work stoppages.
Constitution does not mention seizure, and it cannot be inferred
o The Constitution does not contain express language authorizing a seizure, and a seizure
power cannot be inferred from the aggregate of the President's powers under the
Constitution.
Cannot seizure private property during a labor dispute
o It is true that Presidents do have broad powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces, but the Constitution does not permit the President to seize private property to
prevent the consequences of a labor dispute.
It is Congresss job to make law, not the President
o In issuing his order, President Truman was making law, which is the role of Congress.
The President is limited to vetoing or signing the laws Congress has made, and Congress
would be authorized to take private property for public use if it saw fit.
o Here, President Truman has usurped the legislative power of Congress.
President Limited Law Making Function
o Recommend laws he thinks is wise.
o Veto laws he thinks are bad.
Article I, Section I
o All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States.

Court - Holding
Affirmed.


CONCURRENCE Justice Frankfurter
Look beyond constitutional text
o It is proper to look beyond the constitutional text in deciding the scope of the President's
powers.
No extra-textual tradition
o Since here there is no extra-textual tradition of a presidential seizure power, seizure
cannot be considered within the scope of executive power.

CONCURRENCE Justice Jackson

Analyze Scope of Presidential Powers (Place Executive acts into three categories)
(1) Acts pursuant to express or implied authorization of Congress,
o A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress.
o The President authority would be at a maximum.
(2) Acts on which Congress is silent [absent] OR there is concurrent authority
o Depends on the imperatives of events.
(3) Acts incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.
o Lowest ebb [decline]
o His Cont. powers MINUES Congress Const powers.

Discussion Third Category
o The seizure at issue here falls into the third category.
o It can be sustained only if a seizure power is within the power of the executive and
outside the power of Congress.
Emergency Legislation belongs to Congress
o The power to legislate in emergencies belongs to Congress.
o Therefore, the President was not authorized to seize the steel mills.

CONCURRENCE Justice Douglas
o Congress has the power to pay compensation for a seizure.
o Congress can make a law that the president can enact.
o Otherwise, this would expand Article II.

DISSENT Justice Vinson
o The entire nations steel industry would have been shut down.
o The President possess the Nations organ for foreign affairs.
o The President sent a message to Congress stating his purpose of the temporary
action he took, until Congress could act, so Congress would have something left.
o The President was acting to execute a legislative program, the Korean War that
Congress had established.
o That is within the President's power, and past Presidents have taken similar prompt
actions when it was necessary


Rules
Rule
o The Constitution does not permit the President to seize private property to prevent the consequences of a labor dispute.

CONCURRENCE Justice Jackson

Analyze Scope of Presidential Powers (Place Executive acts into three categories)
(1) Acts pursuant to express or implied authorization of Congress,
(2) Acts on which Congress is silent OR there is concurrent authority, and
(3) Acts incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.


Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 Supreme Court of the United States 1981

Chapter 4 Title The Distribution of Nation Power
Page 373 Topic Foreign Affairs
Quick Notes
President Reagan issued an executive order suspending all U.S. citizens' claims pending against the government of Iran in
exchange for hostages. Both IEEPA and the Hostage Act indicated congressional acceptance of a braod scope for executive
action for circumstances like saving hostages.

Rule
o The president has the power to suspend pending claims against foreign governments where such action is necessary
to the resolution of a major foreign policy dispute and where Congress has acquiesced.


Application
o In Certain situation, the president has the power to settle the claims of U.S. Citizens against foreign governments.
Book Name Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet. ISBN: 978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue
o Whether the president has the power to suspend the claims of its citizens which are pending against foreign governments in
U.S. courts? Yes.

Procedure
Trial
o The district court issued orders of attachment directed against the property of defendants
Supreme
o Affirmed

Facts Discussion Key Phrases Rules
Pl Dames & Moore
Df Regan

Iran Seize American Embassy and
Hostages
o On November 4, 1979, the
American Embassy and personnel
in Tehran, Iran was seized and
U.S. diplomatic officials were held
hostage.
Carter Blocked the transfer of Iranian
Property
o In response, President Carter,
acting pursuant to the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act
(IEEPA), declared a national
emergency and blocked the
transfer of any property of the
Iranian government or the Central
Bank of Iran that was subject to
the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Dames Filed Suit
o On December 19, 1979, Dames
& Moore (P) filed suit in U.S.
District Court against the Iranian
government (D), the Atomic
Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)
(D), and several Iranian banks (D).
o Dames & Moore (P) alleged that
it was owed more than $3 million
under a contract it had entered
into with the AEOI (D).
District Court - Attachment
o The District Court issued orders
of attachment, and the property of
certain Iranian banks (D) was
attached to secure any judgment
that might be entered against
them.
Hostages Released
o In January of 1981, the American
hostages were released pursuant
to an Executive Agreement
between the U.S. and Iran.
o One of the goals of the
Agreement was to eliminate all
litigation between the government
of each party and the nationals of
the other and to settle all such
claims through binding arbitration.
o All attachments and judgments
against Iran were to be nullified
and the claims arbitrated in a new
Justice Rehnquist

In this Case (Youngstown Analysis)
o President acted in pursuant to specific congressional authorization, it I supported by the
strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the
burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
President has the power to suspend claim, if it is necessary for resolution
o The president has the power to suspend pending claims against foreign governments
where such action is necessary to the resolution of a major foreign policy dispute and
where Congress has acquiesced.
Youngstown Analysis
o Much of the relevant analysis comes from Youngstown, where the President cannot seize
private property to prevent a labor strike, especially Justice Jackson's three categories for
executive actions.
No authorization from IEEPA nor the Hostage Act (Youngstown #2 Silence Analysis)
o Here neither the IEEPA nor the Hostage Act of 1868 specifically authorizes the
suspension of claims.
Broad (IEEPA and the Hostage Act) give a broad scope to President
o But both statutes are relevant in that they indicate acceptance by Congress of a broad
scope of presidential power in circumstances such as those presented by this case.
Indicating Congressional Acceptance.
Executive Gloss
o A systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the
Congress and never before questioned . . . may be treated as a gloss on 'Executive
Power' vested in the President by sec 1 of Art. II
No Disapproval, History of acquiescence
o Moreover, there is no evidence of congressional disapproval of acts such as the ones at
issue here, and there is in fact a history of congressional acquiescence [passive assent
without protest] in this sort of conduct.
o Governments often enter into agreements settling the claims of their respective nationals;
it is established international practice.
10 Executive Agreement settlements since 1952, Presumption of Congresss Assent
o Settlement by executive agreement has occurred at least 10 times since 1952.
o Long-continued practice, acquiesced in by Congress, raises a presumption that Congress
has consented to the practice.
Congress approved of claim suspension in the past - International Claims Settlement Act
o Crucially, it appears that Congress has not only acquiesced but implicitly approved of
acts such as claim suspension.
o The enactment and frequent amendment of the International Claims Settlement Act of
1949 evidences Congress's acceptance of presidential claims settlement authority.
o The legislative history of the IEEPA also illustrates this acceptance by explicitly referring
to the president's power to settle claims.
Court - Holding
o Finally, the Order nullifying the attachments and ordering the transfer of Iranian assets is
clearly authorized by the plain language of the IEEPA.
o Where the settlement of claims has been determined to be a necessary incident to the
resolution of a major foreign policy dispute between our country and another, and where,
as here, we can conclude that Congress acquiesced in the President's action, we are not
prepared to say that the President lacks the power to settle such claims
o Affirmed.


Iran-U.S.
o Claims Tribunal if not settled
within six months.
o President Carter issued a number
of Executive Orders implementing
the Agreement.
President Reagan Ratified Order
o In February of 1981, President
Reagan issued an Executive Order
ratifying Carter's Orders,
suspending all claims which could
properly be brought in the Tribunal,
and providing that such claims had
no legal effect in any action then
pending in any U.S. court.
o Dames & Moore (P) brought this
action in an attempt to comply with
those Orders.

Rules
Rule
o The president has the power to suspend pending claims against foreign governments where such action is necessary to the
resolution of a major foreign policy dispute and where Congress has acquiesced.

Application
o In Certain situation, the president has the power to settle the claims of U.S. Citizens against foreign governments.


United States v. Belmont case brief
United States v. Belmont (S Ct 1937, p. 189)
A Russian corp deposited money w/ Belmont, a private banker in NY. Belmont died. USSR dissolved the corp and
nationalized the assets, including the money w/ Belmont. Then USSR gave the money to the US, but the respondents
refused to give the Belmont money over to the US.
Diplomatic agreement btwn USSR and US that USSR wld not take steps to enforce claims against Americans and
that all claims were released to the US.
This assignment of the USSR assets included this claim.
Ct: No state policy (NY) cld prevail against an intl compact b/c govt power gover external affairs rests solely
with the national govt.
Ct: This is a foreign policy agreement not requiring ratification by the states.
Ct: But it was a treaty for purposes of treaties superceding state laws.
The president can, by using art. 6 treaty pwr, make viable municipal law which trumps state law. The
presidtherefore has some sort of legislative pwr.


EX PARTE MILLIGAN
- Emergency provision could not constitutionally authorize the trial and conviction of a citizen detained during the
war by military tribunal rather than by a civilian court.
- Facts of the Case
- Lambden P. Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indiana during the Civil War; he had engaged in acts
of disloyalty. Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court.
- Question
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction over a military tribunal?
- Conclusion
- Decision: 9 votes for Milligan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Amend 5
- Davis, speaking for the Court, held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional.
Martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating.
EX PARTE QUIRIN (1942)

Statement of the Case: Petitioners, eight German-born U.S. residents, are seeking writs of habeas corpus,
on the grounds that the President has neither the statutory or constitutional authority to order them to be
tried by military tribunal, and they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts by a jury as guaranteed by the V
and VI amendments.

Issue/s: Whether a presidential order, which creates a military tribunal to try war crimes committed by war
criminals/enemy belligerents instead of trying these cases in a civil court, is constitutional.

Facts: Petitioners, eight German-born U.S. residents, were captured by the United States, as they tried to
enter the country during war time, for the purpose of sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or
violations under the law of war. The President of the United States held that petitioners were to be tried
before a military tribunal under the Articles of War

Reasoning/Application: Absent clear conviction that a presidential order violates the constitution, the court
will not set those orders aside. During times of War, the constitution explicitly states the President may wage
war and carry into effect all laws concerning; the conduct of the war, regulation of Armed forces, and all laws
defining and punishing offences against the laws of nations. Laws of nations or the law of war determine the
rights and status of enemies of the country, or enemy belligerents. Here Congress passed the Articles of War
act which created the military tribunal. The President ordered all enemies be tried in front of this tribunal and
would not be allowed access to civil courts, thus reliving them of the right to habeas corpus. This court states
that as long as those crimes are indeed crimes of war, they can be tried in front of this tribunal, and this order
is constitutional. If the crime is not a crime of war, then it should be tried in front of a jury. While the citizens
of the United States are owed their 5th and 6th amendment rights, it is not clear that these rights should
extend to non-citizens and enemies of war. This court will not afford those rights to enemies of war that
violate laws of war.

Holding: Yes.
CLASS NOTES:
Nationalize the Steel Industry
- Congress Art1
- Pres- Art 2
- There's no inherent executive power under the constitution
- Frankfurter
o Functionalist, rejects exclusive reliance on text, embraces practical reality
o Systematical unbroken practice acquiesced by congress
- Jacksons opinion
o Tri-part type approach
Relativity
You look at what congress has done and look at president
When the president act in response to an express or implied
authorization by congress
Acting with full approval by congress
Cat 1 Green- authorized by congress
Cat 2 murky yellow
Act in absence of denial, result, rely on his own independent
power
Twilight zone, resolution of questions of presidential power,
depends onimperatives of events and imponderableswell
know when the time comes
Cat 3 Red
Pres takes measure not expressed and incompatible with
constitution
Acting illegally unless the federal law is unconstitutional
Seizure of steel violates 3 statutes
Upheld only if const grants power to seize and withholds
control from congress
- Anything that the army can do, the president can do it

1. No inherent presidential power (IPP)
a. President may act pursuant to constitution or statute (Black)
2. There may be IPP when the president is not violating specific constitutional or
statutory command
a. Jackson- imponderables and imperative of events
b. Frankfurter- unbroken historical practice, acquiescence of congress
c. Vinson (dissent)
3. There may be IPPP where the president does not usurp the power of another branch
(Douglas)
a. Only congress can engage in taking of property
4. P has broad IPP that cannot be restricted by congress
a. Unless constitution specifically forbids
Power of pres to enter into executive agreements
Dames:
- President acted within his power
- No express authority
- Systematic unbroken practice
- President doesnt always have plenary power to settle claims
- Different between dames and Youngstown
o Inference drawn when congress failed to authorize pres action- silence = disapproval in
Youngstown
Involves a purely domestic seizure
o In dames, court drew opposite conclusion that silence = consent/approval
Settlement of internal claims as resolution of a foreign dispute
War powers