From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
United States Supreme Court
343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863 (1952)
In late 1951, steel mill owners and their employees had disagreements over the terms of collective bargaining agreements. Unable to reach an agreement, the steel mill employees’ representative gave notice of intent to strike after the expiration of their current agreement. The federal government unsuccessfully entered the negotiations, and on April 4, 1952, the steel mill employees’ union gave notice of its intent to strike on April 9, 1952. The importance of steel as a component in weapons and war materials led President Truman to believe that a reduction in steel production from a nationwide strike would jeopardize the nation’s security. The President issued Executive Order 10340 directing Sawyer (defendant), the Secretary of Commerce, to take control of and continue operating most of the nation’s steel mills. Sawyer carried out the order, and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. (plaintiff), along with other steel mill operators, brought suit in district court alleging that the President’s order amounted to an exercise of lawmaking, a legislative function reserved expressly for Congress. Therefore, the President’s exercise of lawmaking was unconstitutional. The district court granted an injunction in favor of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., on the grounds that the President acted unconstitutionally, but the court of appeals stayed the injunction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
Concurrence (Burton, J.)
Concurrence (Jackson, J.)
Concurrence (Douglas, J.)
Concurrence (Frankfurter, J.)
Concurrence (Clark, J.)
Dissent (Vinson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 606,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.