Youngtown Sheet & Tube Co. V.

Sawyer
Petitioners: Youngtown Sheet & Tube Co.
Respondents: Sawyer
Separation of Powers
SUMMARY: President Truman ordered Secretary of Commerce through Executive Order 10340
to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The court held that the president did not have any
authority to issue the order he did because it was a breach of the power of the legislative and it
the power to seize was not found in the constitution.
FACTS:

President Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce through EO 10340 to seize and
operate most of the steel mills because of his fear that the nationwide strike of steel
workers in April 1952 would jeopardize national defense during the time of the Korean
war.
o He thought that government seizure of steel mills was necessary to assure
continued availability of steel.
Steel companies complained that the seizure was not authorized by an act of congress
or by any constitutional provision
US government asserted that a strike disrupting steel production would endanger
wellbeing and safety of nation and that the president had inherent power to do what he
had done
o This supposed power was supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent
and by court decisions

ISSUE/S:

WoN seizure order was within the constitutional power of the president
o NO. The presidents power to issue the order must stem from an act of congress
or from the constitution itself
o There is no statute or republic act of congress that authorizes the president to
take possession of property
The authority of the president to issue an order in the circumstances in
this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his power under Art II
of the Constitution
o Constitutional language does not grand this power to the president
The order cannot be sustained even when the president is acting as the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
President does not have the ultimate power to take possession of private
property to keep labor disputes from stopping production
o The power sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power which the constitution
vests on the congress alone

The president who is tasked to execute the law refutes idea that he is to
be a law maker
The constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to
recommend and veto laws
Lawmaking power is vested in congress
The presidents order does not direct that a congressional policy
be executed in a manner prescribed by congress - it directs
presidential policy to be executed in the manner prescribed by the
president
It is said that other Presidents, without congressional authority, have taken

possession of private business enterprises in order to settle labor disputes. But

even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional
authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by
the Constitution