Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Significance, Supreme Court Rebuffs Presidential Claims Of Inherent Authority, Further Readings
Petitioner
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
Respondent
Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce
Petitioner's Claim
That in seizing control of steel production during the Korean War in order to prevent a labor strike, the executive branch exceeded its constitutional authority.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
John W. Davis
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Robert H. Jackson, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
Harold Burton, Felix Frankfurter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 June 1952
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled against the executive branch steel seizure.
Related Cases
- Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994).
Additional topics
- Zorach v. Clauson - Significance, Supreme Court Upholds "released Time" Program, Public School Release Time, Further Readings
- Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. - Significance, Solicitor General
- Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer - Further Readings
- Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer - Significance
- Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer - Supreme Court Rebuffs Presidential Claims Of Inherent Authority
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1941 to 1953