Politics and the judiciary 217for control of state legislatures. Justice Brennan, when delivering the Court’s
opinion in the Baker case, acknowledged that ‘what is actually asked of the
Court is to choose among competing theories of political philosophy.’ Having
chosen, the Court is then faced with the task of putting that philosophy into
practice.
The steel seizure case: Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.
v. Sawyer, 1952
The rather humdrum title of this case conceals one of the most dramatic,
cliff-hanging episodes in the history of the Supreme Court. In 1951, during
the Korean War, the steelworkers’ trade union began negotiations for an in-
crease in wages as part of a contract with the steel companies due for renewal
the following year. The managers of the steel mills were not prepared to
increase wages unless there was a simultaneous increase in the price of steel.
President Truman and his administration had two major concerns in this dis-
pute. They wished to keep the steel mills in production to maintain supplies
for the armed services, but they wished also to keep the price of steel down
in order to check inflation. In order to press their demands the union threat-
ened strike action, but repeatedly called the strike off until eventually they
announced that they would strike on 9 April 1952. At 10.30 p.m. on 8 April
President Truman appeared on television and announced that he intended to
take possession of the steel mills and to keep them in operation. The Presi-
dent explained that he considered that the unions’ wage demands were fair,
and that the steel companies had refused to grant this increase without a
price rise, which, the President said, was ‘about the most outrageous thing I
ever heard of.’ The seizure of the steel mills was effected by Executive Order
no. 10340 under the president’s authority as chief executive and command-
er-in-chief. But did the president have such authority? The steel companies
immediately filed a complaint in the federal district court, and the legal bat-
tle continued until the Supreme Court announced its decision on 2 June.
While the lawyers argued, the steel mills were operated under the direction
of Charles Sawyer, the Secretary of Commerce, in the midst of a political fu-
rore. Members of Congress introduced bills to withhold appropriations from
the Department of Commerce to prevent it from implementing the execu-
tive order. The unions announced that they would strike immediately if the
steel mills were returned to the companies. A turmoil of political and consti-
tutional debate raged around the president. In this highly charged political
atmosphere the Supreme Court handed down its decision, ruling by a major-
ity of six to three that the president had exceeded his constitutional powers
by attempting to take possession of the steel industry without statutory au-
thority. The president does not have the power to make laws, the Court said,
for this function was entrusted by the Constitution to the Congress. ‘In the
framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws
are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.’ Thus the