The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Did the Truman Administration Disobey A Federal District Court Injunction In Youngstown?
The District Court injunction did not stay its ruling, but the Court of appeals did shortly thereafter.
Most of the current rhetoric about an apparent "constitutional crisis" is woefully misinformed. For starters, President Trump cannot possibly have ignored any court order because no court order runs against him. Even if Trump has been a named defendant, any injunctions would apply to members of his administration, not the apex official. Moreover, Trump's Justice Department has dutifully appealed every adverse ruling (as best as I can tell). I've seen no evidence that Trump, or anyone in his administration, has given an order to ignore a court ruling. Some judges ordered immediate compliance, but that sort of demand is simply not realistic. The federal government cannot change direction so quickly in the face of many litigation demands. We saw these dynamics during the travel ban litigation. Attorney General Sessions described the nationwide injunction as an order to turn a battleship around 180 degrees immediately. It cannot be done.
But let's assume, at least for a moments sake, a hypothetical. A district court issues a preliminary injunction against the executive branch. The government asks for a stay, and the district court declines to grant a stay. The government then promptly asks the circuit court for an administrative stay, which is granted the following day. For the twenty-four hour period between the injunction and the stay, the government was out of compliance with the injunction. Is this the sort of "constitutional crisis" that so many people are worried about? Should not the government have at least a little wiggle room, or grace, while seeking review from a higher court?
This is not a hypothetical. It is real. Consider the procedural posture of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). In the landmark Steel Seizure Case, President Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce to take over steel mills to avert a labor strike. As all know, the Supreme Court declared this seizure to be unconstitutional. But the path from the District Court to the Supreme Court is not well understood. Here is how the Justice Black's majority opinion describes the posture:
Holding against the Government on all points, the District Court on April 30 issued a preliminary injunction restraining the Secretary from "continuing the seizure and possession of the plant * * * and from acting under the purported authority of Executive Order No. 10340." 103 F.Supp. 569. On the same day the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's injunction. 197 F.2d 582. Deeming it best that the issues raised be promptly decided by this Court, we granted certiorari on May 3 and set the cause for argument on May 12. 343 U.S. 937, 72 S.Ct. 775.
I think the Court was slightly off with the chronology. The District Court injunction was issued on April 29. The D.C. Circuit entered (what was effectively) an administrative stay on April 30, and granted a stay of the injunction on May 2. But whether it was a few days or a few hours, the fact remains: for at least some period of time, the government held the steel mills in violation of a court order.
Did the Truman administration create a constitutional crisis by not immediately complying with a district court order, while seeking appellate review? Of course not. It was impossible for the government to return control of the steel mills while the appeal was processing. Turning off steel furnaces is not like flipping a switch.
For what it's worth, the D.C. Circuit panel was divided. The en banc court split 5-4 on whether to grant a stay. Had the D.C. Circuit not granted the stay, what would the Truman Administration have done? Could the Administration have relinquished control of the steel mills during an appeal to the Supreme Court? Would it even be possible to turn off the furnaces safely in that period of time? Again, I do not think there would be a constitutional crisis.
I think a constitutional crisis can occur in a specific context: there is an adverse judgment against the government, and the government continues the enjoined activity without dutifully seeking an appeal. Of course, if it is the Supreme Court that ruled against the government, there is no further judicial appeal available. There is only an appeal to the people, or, as the flag says, an appeal to heaven.
