Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Impact

Youngstown is, without question, one of the great cases in American constitutional law. It has exerted considerable influence on the minds of judges, scholars, elected officials, and the public. The case represents the most penetrating judicial examination of presidential power ever conducted by the Supreme Court and constitutes one of the rare judicial rebukes to the claim of presidential power during wartime; it also demonstrates the capacity of the Court to play a major role in maintaining constitutional balance. Moreover, the case's denial of the assertion of inherent executive power constitutes a landmark rejection of a claim to near limitless power that endangered the principles of constitutionalism and republicanism.

The impact of Youngstown may be measured in both its immediate and its long-term effects on the country. When the decision came down, it signaled to Americans a clear, crisp judicial rejection of the broad claims to presidential power asserted by the Truman administration. Newspapers that had condemned Truman's claim to unlimited emergency power embraced and celebrated the Court's courage and constitutional vision. The administration, of course, was dejected. The president had perceived an emergency, had acted in a manner that he sincerely believed to be in the best interests of the nation, and was thoroughly rejected by a Court that included several close friends and colleagues. In fact, Truman had been led to believe by Chief Justice Fred Vinson that his actions would be upheld by the Court. In response to the ruling, the steelworkers immediately implemented their planned strike, which lasted 53 days, from June 2 to July 24.

In some ways, the very willingness of the Court to review and reject presidential assertions of power represents Youngstown's real legacy. The Court's ruling helped to reestablish some measure of balance between the president and Congress. It also reminded the nation that the executive is subordinate to the law, not above it. Furthermore, the denial of the claim of an inherent executive power was critical to the maintenance of the American constitutional government. After all, the claim amounted to an assertion of a presidential power to make law, since it would have permitted the president to act not only in the absence of legislation but also in violation of it. The concept of a presidential power to defy law contradicts not only the oath of office but also the duty of the president to enforce the laws of the nation, as required by the “take care” clause. The specter of a president flouting the law, acting arbitrarily, and ignoring the constitutional power of Congress to make law and seize property summons the ghosts of tyrants, dictators, and monarchs.

As a matter of constitutional influence, Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion, rather than Justice Black's majority opinion, has been more frequently cited and invoked by scholars and judges in discussions of Youngstown. Critics of Black's opinion have derided it as being overly simple and formalistic as well as unmindful of the nuances and subtleties of the separation of powers. Those criticisms may not be altogether fair. After all, the five concurring opinions joined Black in his declaration that Congress had, in consideration of the Taft-Hartley Act, precluded presidential seizure of property when members vote against a provision that would have vested such authority in the president. Moreover, the concurring justices agreed on the essential point that the president has no inherent authority to violate the law. Nonetheless, Jackson's concurring opinion has been more widely celebrated as a more sophisticated explanation of presidential power.

While Jackson's opinion has won praise from scholars and judges for its fluid approach to presidential power, the overarching impact of Youngstown has been seen in its encouragement to subsequent courts to check presidential power. In the Pentagon Papers Case (New York Times Co. v. United States, 1972), the Court rejected President Richard Nixon's claim of an inherent presidential power for the defense of national security broad enough to permit him to seek an injunction to prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court drew upon Youngstown to reject Nixon's claim of an absolute executive privilege. In the annals of American constitutional law, Youngstown will forever be regarded as a decision that reinforced constitutionalism and the rule of law.