Contemporary Business and Online Commerce Law 7th Edition by Henry R Cheeseman

Exercise 4

Separation of Powers In 1951, a dispute arose between steel companies and their employees about the terms and conditions that should be included in a new labor contract. At the time, the United States was engaged in a military conflict in Korea that required substantial steel resources from which to make weapons and other military goods. On April 4, 1952, the steelworkers’ union gave notice of a nationwide strike called to begin at 12:01 A.M. April 9. The indispensability of steel as a component in weapons and other war materials led President Dwight D. Eisenhower to believe that the proposed strike would jeopardize the national defense and that governmental seizure of the steel mills was necessary in order to ensure the continued availability of steel. Therefore, a few hours before the strike was to begin, the president issued Executive Order 10340, which directed the secretary of commerce to take possession of most of the steel mills and keep operating. The steel companies obeyed the order under protest and brought proceedings against the president. Is this seizure of the steel mills constitutional? Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed.2d 1153, Web 1952 U.S. Lexis 2625 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Step 1 of 3

Facts of the Case

• A dispute occurred in the 1951 between the steel companies and their employees based on terms and conditions in the new labor contract.

• April 4, 1952, the union handed a notice with regard to a pan country strike scheduled to start at 12:01 a.m. April 9.

• US, being in a military conflict, required huge amount of steel to make weapons and other military goods.

• President assessed that the strike would immediately hamper the national defense.

• Government planned to seize the steel mills and ordered the Secretary of Commerce to take hold of all the major steel mills for continuous availability of steel.

• Steel companies had to obey this directive but they were protesting it at the same time.

• In the District Court, they complained that the President was not authorized to seize the mills as per the act of Congress or under any provisions of constitution.