Youngstown v. Sawyer - summary

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 th

e 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.

Lastly Justice Jackson rejects Solicitor claims, that President Truman had authority to seize the steel mills because president’s power accrued over time through tradition, customs and claims of proceeding administration. Justice Jackson also rejects the notion of dealing with an emergency by all necessary means (“necessity knows no law”). Jackson supports his arguments claiming that emergency powers are consistent with democracy only if they are not held by the Executive. Moreover he claims that the constitution already “evolved” in the direction, which allows expanding the executive powers in case of emergency. Justice Jackson using foreign examples indicates that extended “emergency powers” may be disastrous to democracy and may lead to tyranny and totalitarianism especially. Concluding his concurring opinion, justice Jackson held that checks and balances, parliamentary system and limits on executive are crucial to democracy.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Jackson also cites Fifth Amendment, contrasting it with Solicitor’s claim that the constitution makes a president a person, who guards the rightful execution of laws. Since Fifth Amendment protects life, liberty and property, Jackson builds on it his claim that 1952 seizure was unconstitutional.

Justice Jackson, in his concurring opinion expresses rationale that is mostly based on rejecting the claims of the defendant. Jackson’s description of Solicitor General’s claims could be divided, by the reader, into four major parts. In each, Jackson describes Solicitor’s claim and than uses different arguments to illustrate his disagreement.

However, Justice Jackson, in his concurring opinion presented a little different rationale. He claims that the range of president’s powers is no

Some topics in this essay:
Justice Jackson, President Truman, Commander Chief, Reed Minton, Youngstown Co, Supreme Court, Solicitor General’s, Co Sawyer, Fifth Amendment, Taft-Hartley Act, president truman, justice jackson, president’s power, commander chief, steel mills, steel companies, legislative power, president truman’s, authority seize, concurring opinion, justice jackson rejects, authority seize steel, president truman authority, seize steel mills, truman authority seize,