The Steel Seizure Case and Inherent Presidential Power

By Adler, David Gray | Constitutional Commentary, Spring 2002 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Steel Seizure Case and Inherent Presidential Power


Adler, David Gray, Constitutional Commentary


The historic American debate on the nature and scope of executive authority, punctuated and dramatized by the renowned eighteenth-century exchange between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, (2) and spiked in our time by sweeping assertions of unilateral presidential power in foreign affairs and warmaking, (3) and by claims of privilege, secrecy and immunity in domestic matters, (4) took center stage once more in the extraordinary case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. (5) Justly celebrated in the pages of this volume, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, for its landmark status and deserving rank in the pantheon of great cases--alongside Marbury, (6) McCulloch, (7) and Brown (8)--Youngstown has been assured of immortality in the annals of constitutional jurisprudence. The Steel Seizure Case, like the Pentagon Papers Case (9) and the Watergate Tapes Case, (10) was suffused with richly-textured historic dimensions. Moreover, it triggered high political drama and pitched conflict, generated great tides of public opinion, and plunged the Supreme Court into a white-hot cauldron of decision-making responsibility in which it faced issues of surpassing importance to the nation, including the fundamental question of the president's power, if any, to meet an emergency in the absence of statutory authorization. When measured against Youngstown, C. Herman Pritchett observed, "all other [separation of powers] cases pale into insignificance." (11) Youngstown featured the most thorough judicial exploration of presidential powers in the history of the Republic, (12) and it constituted the most significant judicial commentary in the 20th century on the limits of those powers. (13) Indeed, it represented "one of the rare occasions when the Court has rebuked a presidential act in wartime." (14) Perhaps it is best remembered, as Justice John Paul Stevens declared in Clinton v. Jones, as "the most dramatic example" of the Court's authority to review the legality of an executive action, (15) for in the end it "struck a blow for the separation of powers" and reaffirmed the principle of presidential subordination to the rule of law. (16)

It is doubtful that even the most prescient of soothsayers could have foreseen the emergence of a landmark case--a case that would eclipse all other separation of powers cases--in President Truman's announcement on April 8, 1952 that he had issued that day Executive Order No. 10340 directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize the steel industry for the purpose of averting a nationwide strike, which he feared would jeopardize the United States' prosecution of its military efforts in the Korean War as well as other foreign policy and national security interests in Europe. (17) Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who at the time served as a clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson, has observed that "the case had something of an O. Henry ending about it." (18) He wrote:

 
   Using the traditional methods of predicting in advance how a court will 
   decide a case, the result reached by the Supreme Court of the United States 
   in the Steel Seizure Case was contrary to what one would have expected at 
   the time the lawsuit was instituted. There were good reasons, amply 
   supported by precedent, why the Court need never have reached the 
   constitutional question in the case. If the Court were to reach the 
   constitutional question, precedent did not dictate one answer in preference 
   to another. The Supreme Court consisted of nine Justices appointed by two 
   Democratic Presidents, reviewing a challenge to the actions of President 
   Truman, himself a Democrat, who had appointed four of the nine justices. 
   The Supreme Court has a commendable record of eschewing partisan politics 
   in its decision making, but in a constitutionally uncharted area such as 
   this, one might have at least thought that a tie would count for the 
   runner, the runner being President Truman. 

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Steel Seizure Case and Inherent Presidential Power
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?