Case Study: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company            )

                                                                        )

    Petitioner                                                     )

                                                                        )

    vs.                                                               )

                                                                        )

Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce       )

                                                                        )

    Respondent                                                  )

FACTS

In 1952, President Truman issued an Executive Order “directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills,” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). The President claimed that this action would “avert a nationwide strike of steel workers;” thus “[jeopardizing] national defense.” See id. The President had reported these actions to Congress; yet no formal action was yet taken. Id. Congress “refused to authorize governmental seizures of property as a method of preventing work stoppages and settling labor disputes;” whilst considering “the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947,” Id. Thus, the issue presented before the Supreme Court was “whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, (1952). The mill owners’ argument was that “the President's order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress, and not to the President.” Therefore, the Supreme Court was tasked with the role of interpreting the President’s action and its correlation with the U.S. Constitution’s powers explicitly granted to the legislature.

ISSUE

Can the President use his position of authority to issue an Executive Order, and obtain possession of private property; when his reasoning is unfound in any Constitutional provision, nor align with the original intentions of Congress?

RULE OF LAW

Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution the lawmaking power of Congress is not subject to presidential or military supervision or control. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, (1952). Further, that “[t]he power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use.” See id.

Thus, “[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” Id.

Under the Fifth Amendment, citizens are guaranteed not to “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V.

And the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes the protections of “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1. Moreover, that these protections ought not be taken; that “[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1. The fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment reaffirms the Constitution’s Article I, delegating the power to make policy exclusively to the legislature. It reads, that “[t]he Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Id at § 5.

Additionally, Federal Rules of Procedure are generally based on statutory requirements, most notably the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. The APA has been called the ‘Magna Carta of administrative law,” (Otis H. Stephens, Jr., American Constitutional Law: Sources of Power and Restraint 252 (John M. Scheb II, et al. eds, 4^th ed. 2008). Otis Stephens, Jr., notes further that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “deals with two basic types of agency decision making—rule making and adjudication—and specifies proper procedures for each.” See id.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as “[a] federal statute establishing practices and procedures to be followed in rulemaking and adjudication. 5 U.S.C.A. § 500 et seq.” Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2021). Editor Bryan Garner notes that “[t]he act was designed to give citizens basic due-process protections such as the right to present evidence and to be heard by an independent hearing officer.” Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2021).

HOLDING

The Supreme Court held that the President’s Executive Order was “not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Further, the Court held that “The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times. pp. 343 U. S. 587-589.” Id.

RATIONALE

The Supreme Court, when viewing these facts in light of the law, reasoned that “[t]here is no statute which expressly or impliedly authorizes the President to take possession of this property as he did here.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Moreover, the Court reasoned that “[t]he Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand”

Similarly, the Court cited the U.S. Constitution’s Article I whereby “Congress may ‘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.’ Here, the Court applied Article I to their consideration, writing that “[t]he President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress -- it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President.” Id.

Additionally, the Supreme Court’s reasoning was based the authority of its decision in the weight of previous rulings, specifically following the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. In Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer, (1952), the Court’s footnote noted that, “[n]o room for doubt remains that the proponents as well as the opponents of the bill which became the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 clearly understood that, as a result of that legislation, the only recourse for preventing a shutdown in any basic industry, after failure of mediation, was Congress.” Id.

JUDGMENT

In sum, the Court ruled that the President does not possess the authority to issue an order; especially one that is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, supported by Congress, or found in American law. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). The President cannot make laws—that power is reserved for the Congressional Legislature. The Supreme Court brought this issue to light in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952); where in a 6–to–3 decision the Court held that “the President did not have the authority to issue such an order.” Id. Moreover, the Court held that “the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker." Id. The Court found that “there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property.” Id. Their ruling supports traditional American law, as intended by the Founders. In President Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court set formal precedence in their ruling. The President is bound to the U.S. Constitution, thus his power is disbursed through the administration. The President cannot make laws; that power is explicitly reserved for Congress.

The Supreme Court thereby enumerated the jurisdiction of the President, to set the record straight; citing the Constitution and its authority as the supreme law of the land. The Court concluded that “[t]he Constitution is a framework for government. Therefore, the way the framework has consistently operated fairly establishes that it has operated according to its true nature. Deeply embedded traditional ways of conducting government cannot supplant the Constitution or legislation, but they give meaning to the words of a text or supply them. It is an inadmissibly narrow conception of American constitutional law to confine it to the words of the Constitution and to disregard the gloss which life has written upon them.” Id.

Conclusion

The bottom line, Congress is explicitly designated as the Legislature in America. The President is incapable of making laws; that power is delegated to Congress. The Supreme Court asserted this formally in a 6–to–3 decision that reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution—and the importance of the division of powers. America was founded on a divided government; allowing strength, and precluding tyranny. Thus the Supreme Court upheld the image of America that was originally intended by the Founders.

Alternative Considerations

If the case were heard today instead of in 1952, the decision would be unlikely to change. The recent overturning of Chevron Deference shows the modern Supreme Court’s position on Constitutionality and divided government—rightfully impartial. The Court is taking a proactive effort to assert its authority and correct inequities in the justice system; even overturning its own erroneous rulings. Similarly, the overturning of Roe v. Wade returned the power to the States, rather than centralize the power within a decision applicable to all. The Courts have reduced the law making abilities of the Executive Branch, their agency, and subagencies to formulate their own “interpretations of law”—even if their interpretations are unfounded within the context of the law. Now, this power has been redacted by the Supreme Court, and returned back to Congress. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled to return the power back to the states. Centralized power is always tyrannical to the opposing minority. Thus, dividing power between fifty states is far less likely to invoke the same detriment as a blanket legislation sanctioned over all.

The Supreme Court’s ruling gave legal precedence to Locke’s political philosophy in the contemporary Justice System, recognizing the existence of a consistent natural law. Moreover, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution recognize the importance of Due Process within the American justice system; and “are among the most important constitutional restraints on the bureaucracy.” Otis H. Stephens, Jr., American Constitutional Law: Sources of Power and Restraint 252, 253 John M. Scheb II, et al. eds (4th ed. 2008). Otis Stephens notes that Due Process is “more directly applicable to agency adjudication and enforcement actions that it is to rule making for it is through adjudication and enforcement that agencies take actions that directly affect the interest of private parties.” Id. at 252, 253.Supporting this legal theory in contemporary polity, the Supreme Court’s “more recent example” of their “willingness to limit bureaucratic authority” through “recognizing limitations imposed by statutory provisions,” was shown in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (2000). Id. at 287. Similarly, “[i]n 1996, the FDA promulgated regulations designed to limit young people’s access to tobacco products.” See id. Thus, Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (2000) introduced regulatory policy directly from the Executive Branch, bypassing the intent of the Legislature. This Constitutional violation gave legal precedence to the Tobacco industry themselves, who took action against the government overreach. Despite the moral disposition this case may invoke upon its critics; this was a legal battle between government interest and the U.S. Constitution. In the end, the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution prevailed; “[a]ffirming a court of appeals decision, the Supreme Court held in a 5–4 ruling that the FDA did not have statutory authority to adopt the regulations at issue.” Id. Here, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor observed “[r]egardless of how serious the problem an administrative agency seeks to address,...it may not exercise its authority “in a manner that is inconsistent with the administrative structure that Congress enacted into law.” Id.

Another example of a recent conflict between U.S. Constitution and the power of the State is the decision decreed by the Supreme Court is Gonzales v. Oregon (2006). Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a rule in 2001 that interpreted the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Otis H. Stephens, Jr., American Constitutional Law: Sources of Power and Restraint 252, 253 (John M. Scheb II, et al. eds, 4^th ed. 2008). Ashcroft’s interpretation strived to prohibit doctors from prescribing lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients who wished to end their lives. Ashcroft’s ruling sought to combat against Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, “the nation’s first citizen initiative that passed that permits doctor-assisted suicide within a state regulatory framework.” See id. In Gonzales v. Oregon, Justice Anthony Kennedy gave the opinion of the Court, writing that it “rejected the notion that the CSA delegates to a single Executive Officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality.’” Id. Conversely, Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent revealed that national Constitutionality ought to always trump Statewide statutes—not dealt on a basis of partiality. While The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) had allowed for government intervention to be imposed over Statewide marijuana statutes, it could not stop assisted suicide from occurring. The ruling proved that the Supremacy Clause applied to State statutes, not to the specificities of general standards of medical practice.

            The special interest group, Death With Dignity, has been in operation since 1997. The cohort claims their “goal is to ensure people with terminal illness can decide for themselves what a good death means in accordance with their values and beliefs, and that should include having an option for death with dignity.” Death With Dignity, https://deathwithdignity.org/about/ (last visited September 16, 2024). The end of life operation promises “[w]e won’t stop until that is a reality in every part of the country.” Id. The Court is willing to defend the rights of controversial and morally questionable individuals, to uphold their Constitutional obligation; ensuring the separation of powers.

The division of powers is circular, in that power is vertically divided between National, State, and Local; whilst being horizontally divided between the Legislature, Executive, and the Courts at every level. The result is an exceptional Constitutional Republic that has proven resilient throughout antiquity. Moreover, a nation who continues to bring value into the world, ensuring its posterity. Individuals may detest specific rulings, but a pluralistic system demands such adherence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in 1952’s Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, is therefore consistent with the rulings decreed by the Supreme Court today. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, (1952), the issue was based on an Executive Order issued by the President and his attempt to usurp private property without approval from Congress; whereas in Gonzales v. Oregon, the issue was the jurisdiction of a national act, namely the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Constitution hold supremacy over all the laws of the land; but it does not reserve the authority to regulate private practice. Marijuana is a federally controlled substance, although legal in some states. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the issue originated from a citizen initiative, not the President. In this case, the jurisdiction of the Constitution was reserved to law, thus had no authority to control policy introduced by citizens.

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court stated that “[e]ven if it be true that other Presidents have taken possession of private business enterprises without congressional authority in order to settle labor disputes, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make the laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers vested by the Constitution ‘in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.’ Pp. 343 U. S. 588-589.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, (1952).

American Constitutionalism observably derives from the political theory of John Locke; whereby Locke believed that “[t]he Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they who have it, cannot pass it over to others,” John Locke, Two Treatises of Government 1719 (Delphi Publishing Ltd., 2017). Locke’s work was a central figure of influence during the American Revolution; though Locke died nearly one century before the American nation would be formed. But Locke’s principles were as applicable in 1952 as they remain today; as Lockean theory continues to be proven in contemporary Supreme Court rulings.

The division of centralized power is essential to preclude tyranny. The Old Testament describes God’s disbursement of tyrannical power both in the Tower of Babel, and in Psalms, whereby we are reminded, “[i]t was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave it as food to the creatures of the desert. It was you who opened up springs and streams; you dried up the ever-flowing rivers. The day is yours, and yours also the night; you established the sun and moon. It was you who set all the boundaries of the earth; you made both summer and winter.” Psalms 74:13-17 (NIV). Thus we are bound by the unseen natural laws that surround us—namely individual liberty. Centralized power comes from God; no other entity is worthy of possessing such authority. Therefore, the decentralization of power is conducive to American jurisprudence, and the preservation of our natural rights.

The inherency of Executive Power is essential; as is the stewardship of such force. Yet without enumerated limitations over its jurisdiction, its expansion is inevitable. Thus, centralized authority cannot stand under the U.S. Constitution; as the Founding document enumerates the disbursement of power among the three Branches of government. This precludes the ascension of the Leviathan, as no one branch can usurp the authority of another; nor the sovereignty of the citizenry.