Law

When Courts Kill Executive Orders

No president is above the Constitution.

|

On April 4, 1952, the United Steelworkers of America called for a nationwide strike in the hopes of driving up wages throughout the steel industry. But on the eve of the planned walkout, President Harry Truman stuck his nose where it didn't belong. With the stroke of a pen, Truman killed the strike by ordering Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize control of most of the nation's privately owned steel mills and operate them on behalf of the federal government.

How did Truman justify this sweeping exercise of presidential authority? How else? He raised the specter of national security and invoked his "inherent powers" as commander in chief. Pointing to the presence of U.S. forces in Korea, Truman insisted that the success of the war effort depended on the president's unilateral ability to keep the steel mills humming. "In order to assure the continued availability of steel and steel products during the existing emergency," Truman wrote in Executive Order 10340, "it is necessary that the United States take possession of and operate the plants, facilities, and other property of the said companies."

Unsurprisingly, the said companies took a different view of the matter. They filed suit in federal court, charging Truman with usurping the legislative powers of Congress and overstepping his lawful powers as president. A little less than two months later, the Supreme Court stopped Truman dead in his tracks.

"The 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," wrote Justice Hugo Black in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer. Yet "the Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times." To hold otherwise, Black said, would be to turn the Constitution on its head. "It would do no good," he added, "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."

Harry Truman was not the first president to issue a lawless executive order and he quite obviously has not been the last. That's why Youngstown remains such an important precedent to have on the books. Even in times of war and national insecurity, the ruling insists, no president is above the Constitution.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: God Bless You

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wish Mr. Root said a few things regarding what kind of Executive Orders are unconstitutional, and when someone (who?) might take action (file a suit I suppose) to preserve our liberty when presidents issue Executive Orders.

    Considering Obama’s EOs and Trump’s EO temporarily suspending immigration from countries where it’s hard to vet people, I’d like to know.

  2. And to think Truman was the less socialist dirtbag compared to FDR’s previous Vice President.

  3. What he should have done was draft all the steel workers and order them back to work or be shot. That would have had a better chance of being “within his power as commander in chief”.
    Or maybe just left Korea.

    1. Or just left the strike alone to work itself out between workers and business owners.

      I would really like for a politician to admit publicly that under our Constitution government is limited in what it can do and bailing out businesses is not an enumerated power.

  4. no president is above the Constitution

    No Judge is above the Constitution either.

    Hope Trump starts pushing back against Judicial Authoritarianism. Remove the tyrants from their seats.

    1. You do realize that firing judges is not one of the President’s enumerated powers, right?

      1. Yep, every court below SCOTUS works for Congress.

        1. Congress can even impeach Supreme Court justices, should they choose to do so.

    2. Oh, I hope he does, too. Because it would be hysterical to watch him get his orange-tinted ass handed back to him YET AGAIN.

  5. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ==================== http://www.net.pro70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.