App. 1062
0ffice-Supreme Co_Jrt,W.S."
F T T, _53:E)
MAY 1 0 1952
"IN
THE
._HARLESELMORCROPL[':Y
(go rt ol Ne Ill
uprrmr
THE
YOUNGSTOWN
LIC
STEEL
SHEET
B_T_LE_E_I
STEEL
E.
J.
AND
CORPORATION,
TUBE
ARI%ICO
SteEL CO_PANY,
CORPORAT.[ON,
UNITED
CONI-pANY,
STEEL
et,al.,JoNm
STATES
CORPORATION,
STEEL
e_ C/_._
& LaUOaLIN
C05[PANY,
and
CHARLES
SAWYER_
Respondent.
No. 745.
CHARLES
SAWYER,
Petitioner,
V
T_E
YOUNGSTOWN
St-tEET AND
TUBE
COMPANY_
et at.,
Respondents.
PETITIONERS
IN NO. 745.
App. 1063
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
_PAGE
Opinion
Below
Jurisdiction
Questions
......................................................................
..........................................................................
Presented
..........................................................
Constitutional
and
Status
Parties
of the
Statenmnt
Statutory
..................................
A.
Events
Before
B.
Events
After
What
of
This
ARGUMENT
the
the
3
3
:....... :.................
Seizure
Seizure
Argument
Case
....................
........................................................
of Facts
Summary
Provisions
4
'
......................................
10
....................................................
Does
Not,
Involve
15
..............................
16
B.
......................................................................
Congress
has
a remedy
which
There
For
expressly provided by
Was
provided
and
Disregarding
has
for
this
not been
Could
Be
precise
followed
No
_:he Remedy
1S
Valid
case
............
19
Reason
Provided
by
Congress
and Adopting
Instead
an Entirely
Inconsistent
and Unlawful
Procedure
..........
App. 1064
24
PAGE
POINTIIThe
seizure
Sawyer's
with
of
other
respect
The
action,
are
B.
Necessary
The
and
unlawful
and
that
other
and
States
Mr.
threatened
conditions
of
unconstitutional
Backgroundithe
Struggle
Against
its Cuhnination
United
properties
including
to wages
employment,
A.
plaintiffs'
..
Successful
Constitution
Provides
30
No Authority
for
the Seizure
or for Mr. Sawyer's
Other
tions
........................................................................
C.
This
Seizure,
Under
cute
as
D.
the
the
The
as
Seizure
from
Executive
Laws,
The Seizure
Cannot
Be
Power
E.
Far
Enacted
Being
by
Congress
Cannot
r.
Never
the
Laws
................................
43
Other Actions
the President's
in Chief
be Justified
Legally
37
to Exe-
With
Ac-
Authorized
Responsibility
is in Conflict
of an "Aggregate
of Powers"
Instances
of Past
Executive
Were
27
......................
by Any
52
Claim
or by Isolated
Action
Which
Challenged
....................
62
Mr.
Sawyer's
Action
Violates
the
Fifth
Amendment
to the Constitution
........................
67
to
Meet
an
Emergency
Power Here
Govermnent
................
App. 1065
69
iii
PAGE
POINT IIIThe
seizm'e
and
Mr.
Sawyer's
are
causing
and
will
cause
rable
injury
remedy
A.
for
at law
Money
action
plaintiffs
have
irrepa-
no
adequate
..............................................................
threatened
serious
grave
injury
injury
74
to the
is im-
..........................................
damages--assuming
covered--would
C.
the
they
The seizure
is causing
plaintiffs
and further
mediately
B.
which
threatened
they
be wholly
could
74
be re-
inadequate
............
78
80
Po_N_ IVThe
prelhninary
sued
POINT
by
the
injunctions
District
Court
were
providently
.........................
is-
: ............
V-
This
is not a suit
against
District
Court
quested
injunctions
had
the
jurisdiction
President;
and
the
the
re-
to grant
....................................................
CONCLVSm_ ............................................................................
APPENDIX
90
97
A :
Relevani:
Provisions
Apl)licable
Relations
U.
86
S.
158(d),
of the
Constitution
................
la
Provisions
of The Labor Nanagement
Act of 1947, 61 Star
136 et seq., 29
C.
Supp.
176-180
IV,
158(a)(5),
158(b)(3),
............................................................
App. 1066
4a
iv
PAGE
The
Defense
Stat.
798, 65 Star.
2081,
The
Production
2121-23
Act,
as
Amended,
64
.............................................................
Universal
Military
Training
and Service
Act,
Cases
Sec12a
CITED
Alabama
v. United
American
States,
Federation
of Labor
v. Watson,
Relations
cert.
Board,
granted,
Ashwander
288
v. Tennessee
(1936)
Bell v. Hood,
Hotel
1948)
Boyce
2d
307
(5th
Valley
Cir.
1951),
................................
Authority,
v. Okely,
4 Wheat.
v. Woods,
v. United
States,
79
234 (1819)
........ 31 fn.
....................................
93 F. Supp.
78
Cir.
89
..................................................................................
v. Weaver,
Britton
1872)
Brown
4 Fed.
Cas.
177
81
............................
274: (lst
States,
v. District
Cir.
1944),
8 Cranch
Court
cert.
58
(C. C. S. D. N. Y.
..................................................................................
v. United
Buscaglia
(1945)
251 U. S. 57 (]919)
v. Butler,
77
297 U. S.
..................................................................................
1950)
Bragg
F.
88
76, 78, 79
Labor
........................................................................
of Columbia
Benson
187
........
327 U. S.
582 (1946)
..................................................................
American
National
Insurance
Co. v. National
Bank
8a
110 (1814)
of San
denied,
Juan,
323
58 fn.
................
145
U.
58
F. 2d
S. 793
................................................................................
App. 1067
87, 89
V
PAGE
Case
of
Proclamations,
English
Case
Reprint
1352
of Prohibitions,
Reprint
1342
12
Coke's
Reports
74,
....................................................
12 Coke's
Reports
of Ship
3 Howell's
Catlin
Money
v. United
v. United
Chicago
& N. W.
1888)
Coates
63, 77 English
Cir.
States,
Dean
Dorr
v. United
of Sanford
Ex
parte
Quirin,
v. United
Fleming
(D.
(:[947)
Fleming
Home
.............. 68, 85
............
866
58
(C. C.
88
1950)
80
88
............
69
................
70
308 U. S. 39 (1939)
2 (1866)
...... 81 fn.
..............................
40, 54,
56, 71
Co.,
Cir.
_'[ilk Products
1947),
Telephone
317 U. S. 1 (1942)
States,
97 fn.
........................................
4 Wall.
v. Moberly
C. Cir.
35 Fed.
285 Fed.
v. Comm'r,
Milligan,
Finn
1922)
Inc.,
States,
parte
Hampden),
v. Prestonettes,
Ex
35
............................................................
(6th
v. United
33
Trials
Co. v. De),,
v. Louisville
949
v. John
Coty
Estate
King
826 '(1637)
States,
Ry.
of Louisville
279 Fed.
Trials
States,
Chappell
City
(The
State
S. D. Iowa
33
....................................................................
77
....................
81 fn.
d'ismisse(l,
331 U.
S. 786
................................................................................
v. Page,
9 How.
603 '(1850)
94
................................
Foster
Packing
Co. v. Haydel,
F_'aser
v. Oeist,
278 U. S. 1. (1928)
54
....
............
App. 1068
89
79
vi
PAGE
Garber
v. United
Gibbs
v. Buck,
Gilehrist
States,
46 Ct.
307 U. S. 66 (1939)
v. Collector
(1911)
......
10 Fed.
Cas.
v. N. Y. ex rel. O'Keefe,
I-Iebert
v. Louisiana
8_
89
355
................................................
Graves
Home
503
................................
of Charleston,
(C. C. D. S. C. 1808)
Hirabayashi
golzendorf
Cls.
45, 46, 95
............
70
68
v. United
States,
320 U. S. 81 (1943) .... 48, 71
v. Hay, 20 App. D. C. 576 (1902) ............
92
Bldg.
& L. Assn.
v. Blaisdell,
290 U.
S. 398
(1934)
................................................................................
70
ttooe v. Uuited
States,
218 U. S. 322 (1910) ........ 57, 81, 82
House
v. Mayes,
Humphrey's
Executor
(1935)
Hurley
v. Grimes
v. Fox,
Packing
Cir.
Jones
1949)
40
295 U. S. 602
(1937)
Service
83, 84
........
......................................
v. Asso_ated
Press,
248
78
S.
........................................................................
Inv.
Co., 200
Fed.
48
113
(1st
..........................................................................
v. United
States,
89 F. Supp.
980
88
(S. D. Iowa
....................................................................................
Ken-Rad
Tube
Supp.
Kendall
193 (W.
v. United
Kessler
v. Eldred,
and
Lamp
D. Ky.
States,
Corp.
v.
92
91
................................................................
Co. v. United
States,
300 U.
Co. v. Gardiner
1912)
39 fn.
........................
S. 82 (1937)
News
U. S. 215 (1918)
Isbrandlsen-Moller
Jackson
States,
2S5 U. S. 95 (1932)
300U.
International
139
v. United
............................
................................................................................
v. Kincaid,
Hynes
Ickes
Badeau,
81
55
F.
1944) ........................................
64
12 Pet. 522 (1838) ................ 92, 93
206 U. S. 285
(1907)
........................
App. 1069
79
vii
PAGE
l_[ilhourn
v. Thompson,
Kimhall
Laundry
1 (1949)
Kohl
Co. v.
United
States,
338
U.
S.
............................................................................
v. United
States,
91 U. S. 367
(1875)
84
................
82
Land v. Dollar,
330 U. S. 731. (1947) ............................
78, 91
Langford
v. United States, 101 U. S. 341 '(1879) ............
82
Larson
v.
Domestic
337 U.
Lauterbach
Wash.
Lord
h'ifg.
5_adden
170
............... 82,83,90
479 (W. D.
81
S. 742
(1948)
(1804)
73 F: Supp.
........ 40, 53
984 (D. D. C.
of America,
cided
Union,
79 F. Supp.
v. IGnsella,
Zpril
Marbury
28, 1952
J. B. MeCrary
Cls.
Meceano,
79
Workers
..............
137
States,
(1803)
54
................ 92,93
84 F. Supp.
368
................................................................
v. Maryland,
v. John
4 _qmat.
316
Wanamaker,
(1819)
253
............
U.
v. Johnson,
4 Wall.
475
(1.866)
81
70
S. 136
................................................................................
Mississippi
23
1951, de-
......................................................
1 Craneh
Co. v. United
1949)
Ltd.
(1920)
707 (E. D.
l_Tnited Mine
v. Madison,
McCulloch
21 F. Supp.
92
............................................................................
v. International
Madsen
Mitchell
Mitchell
334 U.
2 Cranch
Co. v. Stimson,
Pa. 1937)
(Ct.
Corp.,
....................................................................................
Luekenbach
Munro
States,
v. Barreme,
1947)
Commerce
......................................................................
v. United
Little
Foreign
S. 682 (1949)
..............................
v. United
States,
95 F. Supp.
1951)
Lichter
and
88
................ 96, 97
v. lZiarmony,
13 How. 115 (1851)
.... 54, 55, 56, 71
v. United
States,
267 U. S. 341. (1925) ........
82
v. United
States,
303 U. S. 36
(1938)
App. 1070
o.
Vlll
PAGE
Murray's
Lessee,
merit
et al. v. Hoboken
Co., 18 How.
Myers
v. United
National
Labor
land
Mills,
O'Neal
272
States,
(11855) ....................................
272 U. S. 52
Relations
Inc.,
v. United
Board
v.
31 fn.
............ 39 fn.
Crompton-High-
(1926)
........................
Cir.
77
1944),
Tax
Cases,
Co. v. United
States,
88 F. Supp.
1949) ..........................................................
& Company
pany,
v. Missouri
Penello
v. International
of America,
Pewee
Philadelphia
(1912)
Pierce
88 F. Supp.
Company
United
Com-
Mine
78
Workers
8S F. Supp.
Stimson,
of Sisters,
............
223
23
426 (Ct.
U.
63, 64
S.
605
(1951)
Cases,
Cir.
91
Co. v. Puerto
189 F. 2d 39 (lst
Prize
81
................................................................................
Rico Tel.
830
Railway
124
..........................................................................
v. Society
Porto
Pacific
78
............................................
Union,
Cls. 1950)
............................
Rico
1951),
Comm.
cert.
....
denied,
342 U. S.
........................................................................
2 Black
635 (1862)
78
Authority,
84
................................
56, 57 fn.
Rindge
Co. v. Los Angeles,
262 U. S. 700 (1923) ........
Roof v. Conway,
133 F. 2d 819 (6th Cir. 1943) ............
58
79
Shaffer
78
Southern
Sterling
v. Carter,
Pacific
252 U. S. 37 (1920)
v. United
v. Constantin,
States,
287 U.
............................
(1932)
............
App. 1071
78
54
IX
PAGE
Swift
(1917)
Yalley
Terrace
v. Thompson,
Texas
Ry.
................................................................................
263 U. S. 197 (1923)
Co. v. Central
1912)
Fuel
81 fn.
................
i
(8th
Cir.
..................................................................................
Texas
& N.
Clerks,
O. R.
Peoria
Supp.
5S7
Toledo
Co.
v.
281 U. S. 548
Toledo,
and
Ill.
R.R.v.
1945)
States,
of
Railway
........................................
Western
(S. D.
v. United
Brotherhood
(1930)
79
Stover,
Truax
v. Raieh,
; United
95 F.
States
239 U. S. 33
v. Baltimore
225 U. S. 306
(1912)
U. S. v. Bethlehem
60
Supp.
838
Corp.,
v. Carmack,
v. Causby,
United
States
v. Corrick,
States
United
States
United
States
United
States
v.
(D.
P. R.
275 U.
United
408
States
Cir. 1945),
United
States
Trading
Motors
Company,
87
53
................
Corporation,
88
323
106 U. S. 196
grm_ted,
S. 485
1945),
dismissed
v. North
15 F.
(1882)
2d 823
v. Montgomery
(N. D. Ill.
78
v. McFarland,
voked,
............................
v. G oltra,
cert.
81
77
........
............................................................
v. Lee,
1926),
40
General
(1943)
(1915)
Steel
States
States
S. 373
F.
......................................................
United
United
United
79
........................................
1951)
..................................................................................
Tower Hosiery
Mills, 81 N. L. :R. B. 658 (1949)
U.
78
84
............
................
(4th
82
90, 94
Cir.
cert.
re-
........................................
Ward
reversed,
as moot,
59
(7th
American
Transportation
................................
57 fn.
&
58, 82
App. 1072
X
PAGE
United
States
U_fited
States
(1946)
v.
States
(1951)
States
United
United
States
States
1934),
United
denied,
United
U.
S.
34=1 U.
ex tel.
63, 64,
79, 84, 85
(1934)
Workers
................ 58 fn.
of America,
....................................................
(4th
Cir.
Virginia
19'41),
cert.
42
327 U. S. 546
Power
58 fn.
Co., 122 F. 2d
denied,
314
U.
S.
683
..................................................................................
United
States
Fed.
311
Cir.
Virginia
v. Western
(D.
1921)
Ry.
S. 515
Co.
v. _'[acy,
Walla
Walla
(1898)
Wallace
Telegraph
aft'd,
58 fn.
Co., 272
272
Fed.
v. System
Federation
No.
246 U. S. 606
v. Walla
Walla
denied,
v. Pahner
(1918)
40, 300
Water
(1944)
v. Owings,
17 How.
Williams
v. Tanning,
262 U. S. 522
Co. v. Court
(1923)
79
Cir.
................ 81fn.
90
Co., 172 U. S. 1
323 U. S. 712
Brothers
79
............................
Wickliffe
Pacldng
41
............................................................
................................................................................
v. United
States,
142 F. 2d 240 (2d
cert.
893
................................................................
(1937)
Waite
Union
C. N. Y. 1921),
58
T. V. A. v. Welch,
v. West
83
S. 11'4
Mine
56
372
:........................
293 U. S. 620
(1947)
....
................................................................................
States
(1941)
Wolff
(1887)
327
Co., Inc.,
70 Ted.
v. United
States
(1946)
1944),
Co.,
v. Russell,
13 Wall.
v. Threlkeld,
72 F.
States
Weaver
Coal
v. l_auers,
U. S. 258
(2d
Motor
v. Pewee
cert.
United
733
Petty
120 U. S. 227
................................................................................
United
330
R.R.,
.......................................................
United
U.
v. Pacific
(1854)
of Industrial
69
......................
78
....................
91, 92
Relations,
......................................................
App. 1073
78
xi
PAGE
Yakus
Yick
v. United
States,
Wo v. Hopkins,
Statutes,
................
89
....................
68
eto. :
Blaekstone's
Commentaries,
Book 1, Chapters
13 ........................................................................................
Cooley,
Principles
of Constitutional
Law
7 and
53 fn.
114
(1896
Ed.) ....................................................................................
95
Corwin,
Corwin,
Ed.
Libel:ty
Against
The President:
1948)
Government
(1948)
............ 30,31
Office and Powers
365 (3rd
......................................................
3 fn., 34 fn., 66
93 Cong.
Rec. 3637-3645
(1947)
........................................
22
93 Cong.
Rec.
(1947)
........................................
21
96 Cong.
98 Cong.
3835-3836
Rec.
2774-2775
Rec.
....................................................
67
4067
(April
16, 1952),
4159
(April
18,
1952),
4193, 4197
(April
21, 1952),
4287
(April
22,
1952)
..................................................................................
48 fn.
48
..................................................................................
48
48
The
Early
Stuarts
Production
Act
29, 1952)
1603-1660
........................
(1937)
................
of 1.950, as amended,
64 Stat.
132; 50 U. S. C. A. App.
30
2081,
Section
201 ..........................................................
3, 47 fn., 49
Section
201(a)
............................................................
50
Section
201 (b)
............................................................
50
Section
501
..................................................................
51
Section
502
..................................................................
51
Section
503
..................................................................
51
App. 1074
xii
I:'AGE
Departruent
Dicey,
of Commerce
Law
at
p.
of the
33
[British]
140 ..............................
Constitution,
1920
74 fn.
ed.,
............................................................................
Emancipation
Proclamation
Emergency
April
Order
Powers
14, 1952)
(12
Interim
Stat.
1267,
Continuation
Act
96
1268)
....
65
(enacted
................................................................
47
English
Bill of Rights
(1 Will. & Mary Sess. 2, c. 2
(16.q8))
..............................................................................
Executive
Order :
9934
..............................................................................
26 fn.
............................................................................
26 fn.
9934a
9939
and
9959
..............................................................................
26 fn.
9964
..............................................................................
26 fn.
9987
..............................................................................
26 fn.
10106
..............................................................................
26 fn.
10340
..............................................
Federal
9970
Tort
............................................................
Claims
Act,
28 U. S. C. _2680-a
Federalist,
Nos.
Fortescue,
De
H.
36
62 Star.
47, 48, 69
Laudibus
H. R. Rep.
1947)
as amended,
Cong.
80
Cong.
Angliae
1st Sess.
(1951)
1st Sess.
109 (1927)
1st Sess.
37,52
....................
32
............
.... 37 fn.
............................................................................
No. 510, 80th
Cong.
1st Sess.
29 U.
S.
Relations
C. _176-180
2d Sess.
43
22
(June
4 (1950)
3,
22
............ 51 fn.
59
5, 21 (April
..................................................................................
H. Rep.
Labor
982,
..............................................
Lebmn
........................................................
H. R. Rep.
26 fn.
136,
47
Section
101
..................................................................
Section
202 ....................................................................
19
Section
206 ....................................................................
3, 19
App. 1075
Xlll
PAGE
Section
207 ....................................................................
Section
208 ....................................................................
Section
209
Section
210 ....................................................................
Lowenstein,
Magna
German
Treaties,
Defense
S.ctlon
Sectioli
Opinion
Act
General
Railroad
Telegraph
and
c. 45, 12 Stat.
and
Board,
Roetter:
69 fn.
12 Fed.
vol. 2, p. 506
120,
1947
of
Reg.
3!) Star.
47 fn.
War
............. :..........
Seizure
Act
31, 1862)
Law,
Wage
[1945]
and Service
(September
The
Cong.,
Constitution,
1268)
Proclamation
46 fn.
o[" l_b_,_
66
Stabiliza-
Wisc.
7 fn.
L. Rev.
69 fn.
.51492,
1562
15 (1947)..20,
(Cooley's
......................................................................
Supplemental
77
................ 47 fn.,
l_r, p. 47 ....................................
of Nazi
22
22
Labor
1 ................................
of the
65
amendment
the
(1944)
Lines
Appendix
31
......................................................................................
Rep.
Stat.
the
2578
Recommendations
Selective
Training
9, 54 Star. 892
1873)
c. ]34,
by
334 (January
Impact
States,
Counsel
Story,
............................
................................................
Act:
added
Proclamation
Sen.
of 1916,
3, 19].6)
Relations
iS(b)(3),
S(d)
of the
Board,
516
(1937)
3, 20
1933-1937,
39 ....................................................................
213-214
(June
National
Labor
tion
537
3, 20, 25
Carta:
National
Report
Constitution,
of Chi. L. Rev.
Chapter
Miller,
3, 19
..............................................................
The
4 Univ.
3, 19
.of January
22, 42
Ed.
39 fn., 53 fn.
1, 1863
........................................................................
(12
65
App. 1076
XiV
PAGE
Taft,
Our
Chief
(1916)
Magistrate
and
His
Powers,
139-140
................................................................................
Transportation
System
1, 39 Stat.
645
Control
(August
Act
29, 1916)
41
of 1916,
c. 418,
............................
47 fn.
Trevelyan,
England
Under
the Stuarts
(17th
1938) ..................................................................................
Ed.
Tucker
886,
on
the
Constitution,
ol.
2, pp.
30
716-17,
seq .................................................................................
Universal
Stat.
Military
Training
and
36 fn., 54
Service
Act,
62
3, 47 fn., 49
28 U. S. C. 1254(1)
............................................................
28 U. S. C. 1346-b
..............................................................
80 fn.
................................................................
80 fn.
28 U. S. C. 2680-a
U. S. Constitution:
Article
I ........................................................................
Section
1 ....................................................................
Section
Article
II
3
37
............................................................
37, 40, 53
..................................................................
3, 38, 39
Amendment
IV
Amendment
V ....................................................
Amendment
IX
............................................................
3, 40
Amendment
X ..............................................................
3, 40
War
Labor
Stat.
Whyte,
Disputes
164-166
Webnar
............................................................
(June
Constitution
The War
L. Rev.
Powers
Act
of 1943,
25, 1943)
c. 14_,
....................
in Germany,
Article
of the President,
3
3, 31 fn., 67
3-6,
57
Wis.
App. 1077
37, 66
IN
THE
TEal,I,
1951
No. 744.
THE
YOUNGSTOWN
LIC
STEEL
SHEET
BETHLEHEm[
STEEL
E.
AND
CORPORATION,
STEEL
C0I_IPANY,
COR.PORAT[O_,
J. LA_NO
TUBE
_.StRh[CO
U/'TITED
COI_[2ANY,
STEEL
e_
at.,
STATES
al.,
et
REPUB-
CORPORATION,
JONES
STEEL
&
et,
al.,
LhUOHLIN
and
COhIPANY,
& CO_PANY,
Petitioners,
V
C T_ARLES
SAWYER_
Respondent.
No. 745.
CHARLES
SAWYER_
Petitioner,
V
THE
YOUNGSTOWN
SHEET
AND
TUBE
COMPANY,
et
al.,
Respondents.
BRIEF
FOR
IN NO.
PLAINTIFF
744
AND
COMPANIES,
RESPONDENTS
Opinion
The opinion
officially
of the District
PETITIONERS
IN NO.
745.
Below
Court
reported.
App. 1078
Jurisdiction
The
jud_nents
inary
of
injunctions
the
District
in favor
Court,
granting
of the plaintiffs,*
were
prelhnentered
on
April
30, 1952 (R. 76).
On the same day the defendant
Sawyer*
docketed
an appeal in tim Court of Appeals
(R. 77,
442).
The
Court
peal.
Both
of Appeals
sides
on May
has
not
acted
upon
2, 1952 petitioned
that
for
ap-
certiorari,
plaintiffs'
petition
being No. 744 and Mr. Sawyer's
petition
being No. 745. Both petitions
were granted
on May 3, 1952.
Jurisdiction
of this
Court
is invoked
under
28 U. S. C. A.,
. 1254(1).
Questions
Tile questions
by the District
1.
the
Whether
of
_'[r.
wage
and
Whether
Whether
lacking
any
ble relief
by the
To
spondent"
"Mr.
and
an
adequate
right
to seize
to retain
incident
by executive
"inherent
seizure
pos-
of
that
fiat,
new
emergency"
when
under
property
Congress
has
excluding
seiz-
emergency."
faced
remedy
power"
of private
remedy--specifically
in the form
prevent
as
has
a "national
plaintiffs,
District
lawful
resolved
of emplo3unent.
Executive
such
correctly
8, 1952,
and,
of a "national
just
any
April
to authorize
a different
ure-for
were
on plaintiffs,
terms
the
on the claim
provided
had
on
properties
Constitution
3.
Sawyer
to impose
scales
2.
which
properties
those
possession,
the
presented,
Court, are:
plaintiffs'
session
Presented
with
irreparable
at law, are
of the preliminary
injury
entitled
and
to equita-
injunctions
issued
Court.
confusion,
shall
refer
we
to
shall
the
avoid
parties
the
terms
respectively
"petitioner"
as
and
"plaintiffs"
Sawyer".
App. 1079
"reand
Constitutional
The
relevant
and
constitutional
158(b)3,
Prod.uctio.n.
statutory
provisions
Stat.
29
U.
S.
Titles
II
136,
2081,
s(d
a.nd Service
Training
468.
They
Status
_kll the
plaintiffs
steel companies
seized
Order
158(a)(5),
64 Star.
62
Defe,nse
798, 65 Star.
and
Act,
set forth
E.
plants,
J.
LavinG
The
Univer-
Stat.
625,
50
in Appendix
A.
facilities
& Company
are
and properties
were
by Mr. Sawyer
on April
8, 1952 under
Executive
10340 (R. 6) and Mr. Sawyer's
Order No. 1 (R. 22).
LavinG manufactures
refractories
is not engaged
in the manufacture
(R. 192).
theless
Sections
Relatio_s
V of the
2121-2123;
are
I and
States
of the Parties
except
whose
C. A.
and
of 195o, as amended,
U. S. C. A. App.
are
Management
]32, 50 U. S. C. A. App.
Military
Articles
Labor
176-180;
Act
are
X of the United
210 of the
61
15S(d),
Provisions
provisions
IV, V, IX and
Relevant
Statutory
Its
plants,
included
facilities
in the
and
and
seizure
ferro manganese
and
or fabrication
of steel
properties
orders
were
never-
(including
LavinG)
brought
for declaratory
judgment
and
actions
injunc-
tion.
not been
in this
The
cases
have
formally
consolidated
is filed
* In
in
the
its
those
case
District
affidavits
For
the
on behalf
of
example,
labor
of
of
plaintiff
Court
its
vice
it
were
steel
Lavin%
pleaded
presidents,
is
not
industry;
further
in
Andrew
engaged
classifications
the
of all plaintiffs.*
and
in
their
it
was
its
Leith
the
for
and
and
George
manufacture
content
not
grounds
complaint
are
a party
B.
or
the
Gold
the
(R.
sought
in
220).
of
steel;
different
controversy
the
192,
fabrication
substantially
to
relief
established
from
before
App. 1080
the
Statement
The
true
appears
dispute
on
nature
of Mr.
clearly
which
April
upon
led
of Facts
Sawyer's
a review
to his seizure
8, 1952,
and
action
of the
here
challenged
background
of the plaintiffs'
of the
events
which
of the
properties
have
occurred
had
collective
since.
A.
Plaintiffs,
C.I.0.
that
than
to January
days
open
negotiation
for
apparent
to be
Wage
the
of
the
District
those
in
this
brief,
See
Company
Plaintiff
there
are
but
davit
other
forth
of
but
it did
right
to
to
Ex. A
with
factual
did
ask
to
differefices
them
in
its
it
Because,
its
to
744,
special
United
the
of
consider
opinion
(R.
67).
and
joins
situation.
States
c,f Mr.
L,hrentz
on a different
and
how-
judgment
No.
own
plaintiff
affidavit
expired
is-
of the
occasion
in
further
between
five years,
and
have
was
be many
200-202).
certiorari
between
to moving
the Union
conditions
contract
decision
not
refer
develop
negotiutions
Union,
contract
the
prior
president
(1_. 192-198,
Conrt
and
would
the
"not
days
in almost
there
which
plaintiffs
its
time
meet
sixty
entire
ex-
other
Steel
(R.
date;
92).
and
plaintiffs
(cf.
footnote).
Companies
of
(R.
59),
since
it
All
other
agreements
should
file terms
that
upon
that
detail,
the
chronology
so
based,
reserves
"_ Report
and
Matter
of United
Ore
and
Those
as the
first
of
which
than
Although
grounds
in
with
and the
Lavino's
preceding
for the
were
grounds
joined
more
Inasnmc]l
Board;
Steelworkers
Union"),
the Union
to negotiate
all-inclusive
further
Lavino
not
negotiated.**
.Court
United
"the
at the outset
Stabilization
ever,
companies,
the
and
and
1, 1952"
agreement.
Seizure*
caned
31, 1951
of a new
sues
with
the Company
fllirty
the
steel
(hereafter
on December
provided
it was
other
agreements
America,
less
Be]ore
like most
bargaining
pired
Events
page
Recommendations
Steel
Workers
(Case
Harry
and
No.
Weiss,
was
as
references
to
D-18-C),
Executive
omitted
is. available
of
in
p.
5.
This
Director
the
a separate
the
of the Wage
America-CIO
Report
printed
Report
of
the
record
printed
_xe
Stabilization
and Various
Wage
to
the
is Appendix
Wage
by
IV
to
Stabilizat;ion
stipulation
Stabilization
Wage
Board
in the
Steel
and
Iron
Stabilization
(R.
Board
affi-
Board
61_
451)
document.
Board
App. 1081
print.
Union
on November
request
for
delayed
submitting
(R. 92).
the
mitted
'of negotiations
it_ demands
time
steel
As
from
the
separate
general
counsel
explained
a panel
' established
(R.
Wage
twenty-two
proposals
encompassed
proposals"
(R.
Subsequent
plaintiffs
and
the
a'n agredment
intervened
92).
Union
and
On that
day,
_o n_ore
As
the
Union's
hearings
before
StabilizationB0ard,
"literally
President
directed
between
in progress
22, 1951,
(R.: 92-93.).
the:
100-contract,
conferences
on De'cember.
the
demands
92).
in tim dispute
The full
not stii)'-
Union'spr_)posals
at tim subsequent
the
twenty-
however,..uhtil'De:
the
general
items
by
27; .1951
'some
terrns
(R. 92).
demands.were
date,
twenty-two
a hundred
the Union
-November.
enumerated
companies,
of that
a routine
(R..95),
until
the Union
of the
10, 1951.
grown
than
to the plaintiffs
to any
cember
had
opening
At that
two demands
and complex
1, 1951,sent
tlie
toward
tl_e' Oovernnient
'
the WageStabi]iT,
a-
and
equitable
a procedure
not pursued
devised
under
any
procedures.
the steel
At the
companies
work
production
and
terms
by the
same
and
panies
." _
with
The
labor
Wage
schedules
of the Defense
stabilization.
He
while
cited
the
Board
The
Board's
Production
Act.
This
ad hoc*;
statutory
itwas
or other
of
matter
the
and
the
was
reasons
steel
for
com-
there
no
statutory
autliority_'forz
stotutoryauthorit:?
ifi under
Title'lT
problems
'
"
of wage
'" :
1950.
"
which
relates
_ '
" _.....
appears
be-
and
has
only
the
among
Union
at an ira,passe
Stabilization
disputes.
81).
between
are
(R.
President
of the established
of settlement
to
'
to be no
dealing
App. 1082
hope
of settlement
means
is found
of the
steel
through
for
mediation.
Unless
breaking
this
impasse
at
end
of this
industry
the
some
a shutdown
month
is in
prospect.""
There
is no
doubt
statutory
which
The
Board
on
steel
panel,
of the
pubhc,
the
and
argmnents
as
the
public
a labor
action
dispute
procedures
would
imperil
January
industry,
Board
in New
mitted
was
and
taken
that
he was
designed
to
the national
prevent
health
in
York
On March
sideration
of the
the
reaching
The
January
1-16,
positions
to continue
panel
held
10-12,
1952,
and
sub-
the issues
again
and production
panel
there-
of the
evidence
1952,
work
report
parties
the
reports
parties
requested
to permit
(R.
negotiations
con-
61),
and
again
with
a view
to
a settlement
" * * * and
panies
with
and
production
tory
the
the
and
agreement
has
to strike
written
notice
and
Report
of
omitted
and
the
understanding
steelworkers
that
intends
* Statement
a_davit
on
each
such
93).
on February
March
to continue
asked
(R.
summarizing
the parties
a tripartite
to hear
make
Washington
dated
and
labor,
and
direct
City
appointed
of two representatives
and
might
a report
in dispute
3, 1952,
consisting
in the dispute
hearings
and
President's
safety.
special
on
the
of setthng
not following
work stoppages
and
that
that
will
if by April
not
reached
President,
Recommendations
dated
record
of
60,
the
Wage
and
satisfacthe
_nion
96 hours
prior
(R. 94).**
December
(R.
com-
work
and
it will give
to the companies"
in printed
continue
4 a mutually
been
thereafter
the steel
22,
1951,
annexed
to
Weiss
61).
Stabilization
Board,
p. 45.
App. 1083
The
Board
on March
no
submitted
binding
agreed
authority
report
a general
(R.
increase
1, 1952,
a further
effective
July
1, 1952,
and
effective
January
anlounts
(_.
The
94).
As
the
As
The
of
affidavit
of
plaintiff
recommended
would
increase
and
tiffs
disclose
Republic
Report
its
the
and
per
hour
of 21/2
increases
be
were
met
3ohn
A.
when
direct
same
applied
would
1953.
situation.
increased
by
in
filed
Thus,
at
least
it would
(R. 164).
Recommendations
costs
of
be
the
the
$6
per
increased
Wage
members
of
effort
was
to
not
acceptable
to
members
of
of
(R.
the
Industrial
99)
states
employees
by
the
industry
President
the
Affidavits
accepted
part
be acceptable
were
all
94).
reflect
a conscious
terms of settlement
Company
to
employment
in
pronlptly
No similar
Vice
Steel
(R.
industry
accept.
Stephens,
include
in substantial
out by the
States
parties
contracts
of the Board
steel
products
shipped
by
or many
millions
of dollars
_
recomeffective
other
the
new
United
$141,000,000
would
that
as a whole
to recommend
pointed
increases,
1952,
with
dissenting
would
recommendations
plaintiffs.
"
together
They
the
Union
made to assure
the companies
tions
increase
in their
the
of 2
recommended
(R.
Union
demands.
the Board
stated:
The
Board
increase
reconlmendations
Union
which
The
never
provision
Board's
the
164).
had
an additional
1, 1953,
also
shop
The
by
parties
94, 164).*
Board
a union
the
had
as of January
in fringe
benefits
if put into effect,
recommendations
recommendations
and
by them
wage
and
These
in law;
to be bound
mended
its
sum
officials
of
of
of
employment
ton.
and
by
at
Stabilization
that
least
the
company,
$100,400,000
the
other
costs,
the
Relathat
average
$12
Board,
in
plain-
alonc_
of
cost
per
p.
of
ton,
28.
App. 1084
the
Board,
effect,
they
were
contrary
did not
eral
make
issues
They
to
existing
clear
of
would
excessive
and
great
in amount,
stabilization
positive
to
staggering
in
regulations_
recommendations
importance
hnpose
inflationary
the
on sev-
steel
increases
and
companies.
in costs
upon
the
plaintiffs
which
they
could
not absorb
the financial
stability
of their businesses
without
risk
to
(R. 107-110, 125,
131, 132,
importantly,
union
141,
shop
ployment
164).
I_[oreover,
recommendation
relationships
and
very
involved
a question
of fundamental
96-hour
notice
(1_. 94)_
On the
of a strike
evening
States
issued
Order
directed
Executive
8, the
at 12:01
President
Order
.the Secretary
and
10340
(R.
of Commerce
em-
to the
mediation,
call,.effective
of April
of
significance
managements
of all t-he companies.
After
an intensive
period
of negotiation
the parties
: On April
the
agreed
a.m., April
of the
6,
United
94).
(h'[r.
This
Sawyer)
forthwith
to take possession
of such of the plants,
facilities
and other properties
of more
than. 80 named
comPanies
including
the plaintiffs,
the interest
of national
"to
operate
or to arrange
sion
for
necessary
Order
Secretary
-scribe
which
should
and
deem
necessary
the Operation
thereof
for,
or incident
in
and
to, such
op-
(I_. 7)
Executive
"The
as he
defense,
of Commerce
terms
and
the plants,
of which
also provided
shall
conditions
facilities
is taken
(paragraph
of
and other
pursuant
determine
3, R. 8) :
and
pre-
employment
under
properties
posses-
to this
order
shall
operated."
App. 1085
be
' of the
United
armed
forces
Likewise
with
sued
that
vested
States
and
evening
lne
States,
States
of April
and
of all but
a few
Executive
Order.
Mr.
the properties
seized
"shall
include
personal
but not
property,
assets
used
of such
simultaneousl),
plants,
Over protest,
-seized
company
States"
and
Mr.
as.
directed
".In
specifically
claims
on
their
argument
in
disclaimed
any
the Constitution
and
sale
and
coal
listed
recited
to any
rights,
in connection
facilities
railroads
order
be limited
and
Mr. Sawyer
isas of midnight
companies
franchises,
or useful
the distribution
excluding
Sawyer's
(R.
metal
22)
and
all real
and
with
other
in the
funds
the
and
other
and
thereof
mines
that
operation
properties
of the products
and
of tile
of the
as President
in Chief
the isstlance
of the Executive
Order,
his Order
No. l, taking
possession,
night,
tile Consti-
by
Commander
of the United
on the
in
in
* * *"
(R.. 22).
Sawyer
named
the presiclent
of each
Operating
_{anager
for the United
them
and
22).
the
District
statutory
alone.
to operate
their
in accordance
.
'.
Court
authority
(R.
for
371)
the
companies
with
counsel
seizure,
sub-
hi s regula-
:for
and
Mr.
Sawyer
rested
App. 1086
their
10
B.
Immediately
tiffs
Events
after
Mr.
Republic
Sawyer
in the
of Columbia
illegal,
On
April
Those
Judge
posed,
urging
ment
had "power
emergency
the
that
the
255),
an adequate
from
bench
damage
"True,
taken
that
the
denied
the
moqnent
Judge
supersede
seems
cient
to the
its
Court
to constitute
tl_ese
that
possibilities
orders,
renewed
if
they
a_d
in other
these
a showing
arise,
are
quotations
restrain-
of
the
in times
to achieve
were
legal,
Judge
upon
had
not
and
that
Holtzoff
the
ground
shown
irrepa-
added,
however,
drastic
steps may be
management
or which
over
labor
relations.
possibilities
are
of irreparable
It
not suffi-
damage.
for
and
well-fou._ded,
(R.
265)
throughout
Govern-
of national
at law.
applications
proper
considered."
hold-
appropriate
goltzoff
control
judgments
applications
plaintiffs
(R. 263).
Court
temporary
seizures
remedy
suits*
brought
on the same
for Mr. Sawyer
op-
the country
seem
plain-
filed
District
Branch
plaintiff's
fear that other
which would
displace
the
would
and
for
were
Counsel
means
had
rable
States
Executive
(R.
the
United
applied
to protect
as of that
Bethlehem
for declaratory
they
plaintiffs
that
of the seizure,
and
applications
Holtzoff.
by whatever
end"
Seizure
9, 1952,
ing orders.
day before
the
the announcement
Youngstown,
against
.4]ter
restraining
n_;y
(Emphasis
this hrief
If
be
here
has
been
supplied)
* Republic, Youngstown,
and later United
States Steel, each brought
two
identical
suits against
Mr. Sawyer, one with a summons calling for a 60-day
answer under Rule 12(a),
and the other with a summons calling for a 20-day
answer under the same rule.
App. 1087
11
Following
ceeded
Judge
to make
indicated
--to
consent
funds
announcements,
if
caused irreparable
damage.*
Some of the earher
of these
in the
moving
repeated
affidavits
ahnost
down
on the afternoon
Thus
on "Monday
he would
the
terms
panies
be
except
over
by
and
the
that
no
such
few
of
approximately
reach
Director
as
would
for
if they
continue
by
Stephens
Republic
for
to
him
impair
establish,
affidavit
]59,
and
163)
(i.e.,
of an
increased
of
the"
Office
the
of
to
bargaining
issue
at
U.
could
labor
S. Steel
; Watson
Jones
& Laughlin
(R. 123, 130).
(R.
not
reestablish
relations,
of
(R.
99)
affidavit
140);
; Magee
for
McMath
but
the
to
that
issues
Union
plaintiffs;
existing
and
(R.
and
would
be
he might
wage
scale
strikes.
See,
Schlendorf
Bromley
of
the
they
which
Youngstown
and
all
the
strife
and
the
possible
a time,
from
the
turmoil,
not
in
compensation
concessions
positions
only
that
of
the
be
com-
announced
constituted
settlement
corresponding
the
Stabilization;
dispute;
increase
not
of
publicly
it was
one
On
costs
could
Price
wages
affidavits
upon
were
upon
103)
products
labor
settling
action
production
had
the
21 or
increases
the
that
April
(R.
regain
possession
of their
properties
any
increased
rate
of compensation
strained
for
that
wage
in
by
Sawyer
the
publicly
announced
prices
depended
obtaining
should
to pay
without
(R.
making
agreement
Mr.
were
Sawyer
granted;
officials
if
permanently
be
involved
bargaining
so that
without
permitted
affidavit
Bethlehem
the
detailed
acted
Stabilization
issues
over-all
collective
employees
altered
e.g.,
10{)
have
this Court
that
by
Price
would
are
Others
threatened
selling
of
(R.
would
employment".
authorized
Office
effect
when
week."
disclosed
the
in the
increase
of
of
Court
prices
the
opinion
that
even
forced
to
be
price
"package",
the
he
of
a satisfactory
successful
of next
from
into
out,
"consideration
increase
above
that
exporienced
the
anticipated
and
May 3.
conditions
before
might
103).
the conl-
by appropriating
carried
18, Mr.
undertake
and
Affidavits
recovered
April
or Tuesday
22)
which
(R..
re-
in terms
changes
to the moment
labor
upon
announcements
of Saturday,
on Friday,
fit, and
ttoltzoff
of
changes
those
which
Judge
control
he saw
to put
pro-
occasions,
of
whatever
of emplo)_nent
These
words
Sawyer
to do this by imposing
their
companies'
103).
the
[Inanagenlent's]
lie proposed
without
conditions
the
its
Mr.
on several
intention--in
"supersede
panies
decision,
announcenlents,
his
lations",
tIoltzoff's
affidavits
16)
; Elliot
affidavits
for
App. 1088
12
Sunday,
April
"there
will
20,
he
publicly
certainly
be
stated
some
categorically
wage
increases
that
granted"
(R. 103).
On April
Sawyer
before
22 press
reports
had indicated
the Government
workers
in the
seized
threats,
the three
Bethlehem)
which
the
applications
on motions
They
joined
Ulfited
had
in the
meanwhile
tory
judgment
two
though
its formal
was
for
Pine
wages
that
repeated
Mr.
'(like
Sawyer
and
Laugh-
each
actions
briefed
of which
for
and
24, and
declara-
those
to oust
Mr.
limited
al-
plaintiffs)
Sawyer
froin
final
25)
Steel,
from
its prayer
restrained
pending
argued
April
States
of the other
argument
be
were
Friday,
United
injunction
conditions
(Jones
shnilar
brought
April
on the
(R.
Lavino),
280-427).
motion
or working
and
extensively
(R.
of its plants,
a request
these
orders
plaintiffs
Steel
brought
a preliminary
control
with
injunctions
(Thursday,
Judge
of Mr.
be another
day or two
a pay raise
for the
restraining
injunction
were
before
"associates"
Faced
temporary
States
and
days
mills".
by the other
lin, Armco,
for
"it may
announces
preliminary
167, 184).
These motions
that
plaintiffs
(Youngstown,
Republic
and
had appeared
before
Judge
Holtzoff
on
for
for
were
that
stated
to
changing
hearing
(R. 67).
But it coupled
this prayer
with a proposal
for "trial
on
the merits
of this case immediately"
in contrast
to Mr.
Sawyer's
counsel's
At the argument
yer
declined
was
before
to give any
act to change
case
opposition
wages
sz_.b judice
to early
trial
Pine,
counsel
Judge
assurance
or working
(R.
365-366).
that
(R. 411).
for ]_[r. Saw-
his client
conditions
Judge
even
Pine
would
not
while
the
thereupon
proceeded
to work on his opinion,
which was delivered
the late afternoon
on Tuesday,
April 29 (R.. 66).
App. 1089
on
13
He
held
that
the
thority
of
law,
that
the plaintiffs,
and
stored
to the
States
Steel
seizures
were
irreparable
that
plaintiffs
illegal
and
damage
would
possession
should
(R. 73-76).
With
CompaJ_y's
more
limited
without
au-
result
therefore
regard
prayer,
to
be reto United
he said
that
he
"could
not
would
consistently
contemplate
defendant's
acts,
expressed
issue
such
u possible
in view
* *
an injunction
basis
of my
for
which
the validity
opinion
of
hereinabove
Company
and
wishes
proceed
leave
will be granted
same
injunction
issued
the
to withdraw
on the
motion,
plaintiffs."
This
Steel
amendment
original
and
States
for
basis
that
of its
puri_ose,
to it as to the
other
(R. 76)
was
accordingly
done
Immediately
upon the announcement
of Judge Pine's
decision,
the Union
issued
a strike
call and its members
started
to leave
the
was
complete.
stoppage
On April
and
they
fective
this
appeal
until
Mr.
Court.
Pine
(R. 77-78).
on
by the
By
the
same
narrow
this
The
a stay
When
this
day
acted
counsel
Court
(April
of the
was
to the
Court
stated
of Appeals
same 5 to 4 vote,
by the plaintiffs
(R. 79),
of Appeals,
a stay
for
they
that
petition
the Court
to insert
ef-
certiorari
would
provided
if such
the
of appeal
denied
on a petition
had
30)
injunctions
of 5 to 4, granted
would continue
beyond
]_ay 2 only
filed on that day (R. 442, 444).
On May 1, by the
denied an application
day
filed notice
for
margin
Court
Sawyer's
the next
to Judge
applied
which,
wlfich
30, counsel
applied
pending
mills.
file in
its
stay
were
of Appeals
a condition
App. 1090
14
in the stay desiguedto prevent Mr. Sawyer from unilaterally altering terms andconditionsof employmentpending
disposition of Mr. Sawyer's contemplated petition for
certiorari (R. '444, 446).
On Friday,
certiorari
day
May
Mr.
upon
to alter
Plaintiffs
by
wages
a condition
at a settlement
morning
order
changes
into
5],
with
impose
any
ment without
Beginning
over
the
Mr.
would
Sawyer
leave
at any
him
moment.
granted
this
from
happening.
May
companies
and
labor
be
it should
the
Union
con-
did
controversy,
prepared
on
as we can
and
conditions
3, this
Court
issued
the
for
conditions
will
of May
12, and
filed by the
of the injunction
get
Monday
ready,
to
of employment
effect."
On the afternoon
decision
to
were
or as soon
in terms
brief
which
of their
government
[May
to be put
May
steel
filed
party
stay
of Saturday,
if the
" * * * the
in both
working
if any
each
Counsel
stay
for
same
(Docket
as to a stay
Court.
to prevent
that,
arrive
and
that
On the morning
not
this
which
Court
on the
certiorari
in an amicus
raised
an unconditional
urged
declared
and
was
for
reply
this
afterwards
petitioned
of the other,
decision
insisted
petitioned
Soon
in the
the question
pending
tain
likewise
petitions,
the petition
free
No. 744).
Sawyer
No. 745).
In both
Union,
2, plaintiffs
(Docket
a stay
of the
direction
that
granted
case
for
certiorari
argument
injunction
Mr.
Sawyer
on
pending
its
should
not
changes
in terms
and conditions
of employthe consent
of the Union and the companies.
on Friday
week-end,
to work;
and
as this
returned
approximately
afternoon,
the
Union's
brief
May
2, and
members
started
is written,
steel
continuing
to return
production
to normal.
App. 1091
has
15
Summary
This
is not a case
Executive
Branch
and
no
action
by
taken
executive
remedy
The
action,
and
pletely
purpose
fiat,
the
including
with,
common
They
where
a labor
and
it is
dispute
contrary
to meet
properties
and
his threatened
authority
in its
sudden
contrary,
settling
conditions,
States.
--either
the
the
to, the
just
such a
pp. 18-26).
working
founded.
in a situation
by Congress
of plaintiffs'
United
that
to meet
On
of
inconsistent
provided
without
of the
emergency
for
the
can be made
to act
is available.
(infra,
wages
of
national
seizure
other
the claim
remedy
expressly
situation
where
is compelled
unanticipated
statutory
of Argument
law
under
the
are
upon
which
Sawyer's
changes
unlawful
and
Constitution
contrary
unilateral
are
They
Mr.
and
to the
the
laws
traditions
Constitution
was
by the Constitution
or as construed
from
in
com-
the
itself,
beginning
of the Republic
until now. They cannot be justified
either
on the theory
of executive
responsibility
to "take Care that
the Laws be faithfully
executed,"
or under
the President's
power as Conmmnder
in Chief,
ent powers"
(infra, pp. 27-73).
The
spect
seizure,
to
caused
and
will
which
there
money
damages
The
the
against
preliminary
Mr.
are
and
the
in the
final hearing
working
remedy
injunctions
seizure,
are
or
at
against
terms
(infra,
any
and
law
have
and
for
for
which
pp. 74-86).
providently
very
unilateral
conditions
re-
injury
entitled
the
with
conditions,
(infra,
were
Plaintiffs
at
of "inher-
action
irreparable
not recoverable
Court.
theory
threatened
plaintiffs
is no adequate
injunction
Sawyer
pending
wages
cause
preliminary
District
relief
Mr. Sawyer's
changing
and
or on any
issued
to
by
injunctive
minhnum,
to a
changes
by
of employ_nent
pp. 86-89).
App. 1092
16
This is not a suit against the President; and the District
Court bad jurisdiction to grant the requestedinjunctions
(infra, pp. 90-97).
What
This
case
This
does
Case
not
Does
involve
Not
the
Involve
question
whether
the
nation,
or our troops
in Korea,
need uninterrupted
steel
production.
Obviously
they do. Counsel
for Mr. Sawyer,
in the affidavits
submitted
in opposition
below, and in the
petition
for certiorari
of the nation
origin;
in this
nor
has
for assuring
respect.
Congress
continued
so requires.
Those
been
effective
ure.
Those
at any
means
even
and would
and effective
it should
time
at the
in any
the
the statutory
processes
Sawyer's
Congress
of
labor
seizure
as
a means
complflsory
Sawyer
conditions
Plaintiffs
of the
ture
desire
seeks
uninterrupted
depends
that
upon
would
moment
would
was
production
have
been
ignored;
true
intention
made.
have
of the
seiz-
have
been
They
are
for
and
under
as well
as
the
of steel.
it. Plaintiffs,
like _ir.
should
in this fact
plaintiffs'
occur
arbi-
excluded
disputes;
yet
is what
l_ir.
terms
and
new
plaintiffs.
Sawyer
production
no interruption
and
of seizure
all
Mr.
But
those
by imposing
upon
of steel.
expressly
with
force
to achieve
why
for compulsory
has
dealing
is no reason
in seizing
of employment
know
and
the
disputes,
arbitration
now
safety
is found
tration
means
and
seizure
decision
affect
properties.
lawful
be effective
now.
They
will still be
when this Court hands down its deci-
way
Mr.
to the
needs
not of recent
the national
available
available
time
that
where
down
are
to provide
were
were
available
available
Whatever
failed
the vital
needs
production
means
effective
sion.
Those
the
importance
Indeed
their
Sawyer,
in their
fu-
earnestly
operations.
App. 1093
17
They
have
no intention
of discontinuing
operations.
They
in the manner
does
this
prescribed
case
of the Wage
by law.
inv01ve--and
we believe
this
withithe
merits
of the
Stabilization
Board,
or the merits
Court
reconunendaof the
respective
positions
of either
the companies
or the
The issue, in brief, is not whether
steel production
be continued,
or how an interruption
Should
Union.
must
be avoided.
It
is not whether
the Union is or is not entitled
to more wages,
or the companies
to higher prices.
The sole issue which is
before
this Court--and
the companies
seize
-own
private
settlement
and
which
the Unioniis
property,
of
If arbitrary
today,
wage
decrease,
equally
all
lawful
citizens--not
executive
then
or longer
tomorrow;
of these
by
and
to force
executive
hours,
plaintiffs
may
fiat
his
to con-
of what
that
a wage
increase
is
action
to force
or anything
the
Sawyer
proceed
action
and
Mr.
between
administrative
dispute,
to carry
arbitrary
all issues
whether
hnpose
a labor
fiscate private
property
settlement
should
be.
lawful
transcends
constitutional
aloneiwill
else,
will
rights
be
of
be gravely
endangered.
App. 1094
18
ARGUMENT
POINT
Mr.
trary
the
Sawyer's
action
action
sole
Obviously
provided
now
strike
the
steel
which
both,
a labor
fact
* Page
And
references
and
memorandum
flied on behalf
which
we
ex-
should
not
of
process.
is described
it obviously
as
is--or
the production
for
present
flies
for
throughout
squarely
this
of
purposes
in the
this precise
of the
be
actions
process
inconsistent
action
action
development
had
long
deliberately
the
prescription
to this
memorandum
Union
Sawyer's
admit
con-
Congress
with
most
to continue
his
the
is that
dispute--which
is that
the
too,
serious
for Mr.
a wholly
certainly
of a Congressional
a_ en_rgency.
of
emergency."
to follow
Sawyer's
by a desire
we may
the
for
a labor
production
the most
should
refuses
_[r.
motivated
the
authorization
upon
to settle
to settle
eventuality
what
insists
action
thing
with
therefore,
action
have
very
specified
admittedly
and
as spokesmen
national
Obviously,
and
asserted
Whether,
of
significant
against
and
not,
insisted,
would
nation.
The
intention
The
of was
period
confronted,
mimeographed
for
p. 1.)*
to the
a strike.
are
face
counsel
of the Presidential
the uninterrupted
this
a steel
ago
--or
to,
Court,
object
have
to insure
(Memorandum,
Congress
District
and
complained
during
sequences
for
management
but
steel
plainly
is an arbicontrary
by Congress.
in the
reason
herein
steel
dispute,
done.
rights
directly
stated:
" * * * the
pressed
and
provided
memorandum
Sawyer
called
with,
expressly
In their
the
of plaintiffs'
inconsistent
remedy
Mr.
invasion
kind
of
situation
as it
brief
to tho
are
App. 1095
Court.
19
existed
on
making.
some
April
The
situation
overnight
first
and
then
for
tive
procedure
and
then
gress
The
upon
the
for
would
when
imperil
the
that
Attorney
while
precise
national
to adjust
pointed
to seek
61
Stat.
136,
is
or
S.
C. A.
which
created
nmtually
to
satisfac-
By Section
to appoint
strike
or lockout,
part
safety.
hearings
206
a Board
of
it,
Section
207
to ascertain
the
receiving
the Board's
report,
by Section
208 to direct
the
an injunction
unsettled,
President
U.
Corn
which
consequences
substantial
health
of their
remains
29
which
of 1947"
or actual
or
injunction
the settlement
by the
emergency
a remedy
interests.
to conduct
the
Act
created
dispute
the
infra,
After
Board
the
the
the
strike
Federal
by Section 202,
in their efforts
differences.
is to report
176-180,
against
is in effect,
Mediation
and Conciliation
Service,
is to assist the parties
to the labor
if the dispute
to
by an execu-
case
is authorized
dispute.
After
is authorized
While
of Congress
a means
encouraging
industry
Board
General
or lockout.
cirlaw
means
disastrous
a threatened
entire
facts of the
the President
this
of conflicting
an
empowers
the
Relations
affecting
present
by some
of the
instead
for avoiding
economy
of Inqlfiry
resemble
by the Executive.
Management
reconciliation
of that
creation
using
provided
followed.
procedures
nation's
tory
the
right
in the
usurpation
in these
frustrated
disregardblg
and
exclusively
Labor
careful
awaits
remotely
executive
If,
is utterly
which
months
is warranted
constitutional
A. Congress
has
has not been
even
usurpation
the
provided
fashioned
not
been
requiring
emergencies
insists
has
had
afterward.
executive
of necessity,
year
does
catastrophe
legalization
cumstances,
provide
8 of this
60 days,
of Inquiry
current
Appendix
A,
ap-
position
pp.
5a-8a.
App. 1096
2O
of the parties,
the efforts
made for settlement,
and a statement of the employer's
last offer of settlement.
This report
is to be made
lowed,
withi._
available
15 days,
to ascertain
whether
settleme_#.
(Section
are
certified
has been
must then
the
209.)
ballot
_en
the
is to be fol-
of the
to accept
Attorney
this
employees
last
results
General,
is discharged,
to Congress
Board
of Inquiry,
action.
with
(Section
offer
of this
or
program
for
There
at any
earlier
left
protecting
for
and
to
of the
appropri-
is, of course,
notlfing
to
asking
addi-
void
in its
date.
no
the
General
After
is required
to Congress,
Congress
ballot
the findings
h.is recommendations
210.)
of
if a settlement
President
including
reporting
legislation,
Accordingly,
the
his report,
him from
tional
wish
and
reached
by the parties,
the Attorney
move the court to discharge
its injunction.
injunction
prevent
by a secret
they
to the
submit
ate
to the public
procedural
national
interest
when
im-
periled
by a threatened
strike.
It did not leave for the
Executive
the determination
of the course
of action
to be
followed
when
hausted
without
the dispute
inescapable
intent
The
pute
was
was
situation
the
procedures
not resolved
injunction
Report
the
in effect,
states
80-day
that
for
if the
period,
"the
the
seems
necessary
to preserve
Nation
in the
Sess.
The
ically
crisis."
was
that,
if the disthe
President
should
present
the
legislation.
is not
provides
Congress
(Sen.
ex-
in which
bill
before
are
period
dispute
the matter
Act
settled.
the 80-day
necessary
laying
in the
been
of Congress
during
to Congress
detailed
having
the
Rep.
The
terminated
for
the
and
during
President's
for whatever
health
Senate
legislation
safety
of the
Cong.,
1st
15 (1947).)
fact
left
that
for
subsequent
Congress
emergency
itself
to take
action
was
is furtlmr
specifclearly
App. 1097
21
shown by tile statementon the Senatefloor of the author
of the bill:
"We did not feel that we should put into the law,
as a part of the collective-bargaining machinery, an
ultimate resort to compulsoryarbitration, or to seizure,
or to any other action. We feel that it would interfere
with the whole process of collective bargaining. If
such a remedyis available as a routine remedy, there
will always be pressure to resort to it by whichever
party thinks it will receive better treatment through
such a processthan it would receivein collective bargaining, and it will back out of collective bargaining.
It will not make a bona-fideattempt to settle if it
thinks it will receivea better deal under the final arbitration which may be provided.
"We ]lave felt that perhapsin the caseof a general
strike, or in the caseof other seriousstrikes, after the
termination of every possibleeffort to resolve the dispute, the remedy might be an emergencyact by Congress for that particular purpose.
"I have had in mind drafting such a bill, giving
power to seizethe plants, andother necessaryfacilities,
to seize the unions, their money,and their treasury,
and requisition trucks and other equipment; in fact,
to do everything that the British did in their general
strike of 1926. But while such a bill might be prepared, I should be unwilling to place such a law on
the booksuntil weactually face suchan emergency,and
Congressapplies the remedyfor the particular emergency only. Eighty days will provide plenty of time
within which to consider the possibility of what should
be done;andwe believevery strongly that there should
not be anything in this law which prohibits finally the
right to strike." (93 Cong.Rec. 3835-36(1947).)
App. 1098
22
At
the
same
the procedure
ment
which
in the
time
adopted
would
event
have
vote.
Moreover,
Mr.
threatened,
the
a statutory
duty
was
not
on
the
given
the
3637-3645
employees'
Act
and
only
(1947).)
and
to collective
employee
the
8(b)(3)
by the
the
made
to bargain
employer
and
right
employees.
preserves
bar-
Congress
collectively
was
un-
the
era-
to require
bar-
employer's
it places
bargaining
by an
accomplished
of 1947,
correlative
but in Section
seizure
legislation.
Act, as amended
to bargain
ployer
amend-
rejected
rights
time,
against
A proposed
both
employer
to that
gaining
The
to bargain,
Rec.
plaintiffs'
of both
Prior
will
governmental
actions,
Relations
its
specifically
by Congressional
Labor
Relations
l_anagement
collectively.
for
was
(93 Cong.
destroy
it an obligation
der
provided
Sawyer's
gaining
conferred
In the National
expressed
by Mr. Sawyer.
of emergency
overwhelming
Labor
Congress
duty
a similar
representative
duty
and
thus
representative.
In
Section
8(d),
also
added
in
1947, collective
bargaining
is defined as the "performance
of the mutual
obligation
of the employer
and representative
of the
employees."
The
Congressional
employee
lively
throughout
nmtual
obligation
Indeed,
ferred
* H.
43
80th
the courts
upon
R.
Rep.
Cong.
have
No.
245,
Sess.
80th
and
rights
the Senate
will
and have
Cong.
2B (1947)
; H.
and
the
1st
R.
Sess.
Rep.
House
by
statutory
enforced
5,
and
to bargain
be enforced
recognized
the enlployer
1st
to create
duties
is evident
This
105,
intent
correlative
21
Reports.
the
con-
tlle duty
80th
courts.
rig!it
(1947);
1_'o. 510,
collec-
of a
Sen.
Rep.
Cong.
:lst
(1947).
App. 1099
:No.
Sess.
23
union to bargain
collectively
by granting
requested
by the National
Labor
Relations
v. International
Union,
88 F.,Supp.
Union,
United
Mine
(D. D. C. 1948).
situation
that
Labor
Mine
this
granted
here,
meeting
the
propriety
we cannot
ignore
the
of public
interest
Thus
the
relies,
directly
rights
but,
this
to the
kind
parties
status
is not
in support
of one
bargaining
Under
are
the
party
to the
finally
fail,
con-
which
Mr.
not
the
collective
and
specific
Saws"er
only
run
Congress
destroy
dispute.
has
statutory
prescripbargabting
equality
by arbitrary
labor
be per(Virginia
Congressional
the
preserved
disturbed
should
relief."
which
and
of emergency,
the
on
deny
peace.
is taking,
procedures
in so doing,
of both
gaining
Federation,
he
of Conthat
at
which
to give
which
relief
indicated
its purpose
is in itself a declara-
authorization
action
of the plaintiffs.
for
rights
lective
the
counter
established
tion
asserted
and
judgment
emob-
policy
courts
Railway
Co. v. System
552 (1937).)
equitable
employees
and
in inducblg
by the
Court
aid to industrial
"The
fact
that
Congress
has
to make negotiation
obligatory
suasive
brought
The
in legislation,
and
is a powerful
O
tion
by the Railway
of his employees
of the
expressed
616
in an analogous
on a carrier
of employers
table
79 F. Supp.
held
by injunction
in a suit
accredited
representative.
deliberately
ference
of America,
has
of America,
v. Inter,_mtional
considering
gress,
Workers
Madden
Court
is enforceable
ployees'
duly
served :
"In
Workers
And
Act to treat
the
United
an injunction
as
Board.
Penello
of bar-
intervention
Should
Congressional
colaction
App. 1100
24
would
follow
with
due
regard
for
the
interests
of both
parties.
In fact, the procedures
directly
contrary
to those
the Act, as amended.
of 80 days
of continued
with
present
the
seriously
to the
that
prejudiced
for a period
unprejudiced
empowered
to issue
of recomanendations.
dispute
request
in effect
bargaining,
appointment
of a board
tions or by the issuance
of the
adopted
by the Executive
were
contemplated
and prescribed
by
the
the
Wage
Board
by
recommendaThe referral
Stabilization
make
bargaining,
the
Board,
recommendations,
because
neither
side
colfld afford
to make concessions
new floor for the recommendations
issue.
were
After
further
and
had
witho_t
There
ing
and
by the
Labor
follow
that
Congress
in any
No
Valid
by
failing
and
case
Court,
the
the
can thereby
unwarranted
emergency
to the
Unlawful
of
Constitution
Disregard-
Adopting
and
it may
required
Act.
ta
prescribed
it does
not
provided
for itself
procedures
and
be
by law
But
procedure
create
In-
Procedure.
procedure
Relations
to use
caused
foreseen
a board
For
and
is not
the Executive
both
Reason
District
given
for
Congress
President
Management
by
to invoke
contrary
in the
the
they
had
recommendations.
Inconsistent
that
in motion
Be
Provided
asserted
here,
issued
Congress
by providing
to make
Could
Remedy
was
which
to avoid
an Entirely
asserted
set
difficulties
power
Was
the
stead
It
recommendations
attempted
inquiry
B.
the
bargaining
to the
by
a right
altogether
plain
intent
of Congress.
In the
District
following
during
the
the
in November
Court,
procedure
period
1951
from
the chief
laid
excuse
down
by
the commencement
to their
breakdown
advanced
Congress
for
was
not
that
of negotiations
in April
1952
App. 1101
the
25
Union had voluntarily allowed its membersto remain at
work for more than the 80-day "cooling-off period" prescribed by the Lahor ManagementRelationsAct. It is not
claimed that this voluntary abstentionby the Union operatedto bar the Government,onany theory of estoppel,from
using the remediesprovided by Congress;and during this
voluntary abstentionperiod therewas of coursenoresort to
the procedureslaid downby the Act, including particularly
the provision for a secret ballot of the employeesto ascertain whether they wished to acceptthe last offer of settlemerit nmdeby management.
It has also beensuggestedthat resort, either at the time
of the seizureor now, to the remedyprovided by Congress
might befutile, sinceit nfight simply postponethe problem
for another 80 days. This is sheer speculation.
Among
other
things,
the
during
the
80 days
the
members
the
Act--an
(iii)
time
the
for
claim
work
there
of the
Congress
already
that
the
was
Act
considerations
under
the
tion Board
96 hours
case
(the
have
apart,
the Union
8,
been
this
had
agreed
of its strike
Longshoremen's
call.
strike
when
call
overlooks
the
to give,
and
August
mere
not
instead
the
seiz-
already
an injunction
All
the
Wage
In at least
of
along
was
to obtain
hefore
ample
resorting
a shutdown.
argument
made
offer,
be
remedies
that
of
last
might
strike
too late
209
present
Congress
below
to prevent
that
The
it and
'/ii)
pp. 20-21).
by
action.
also made
that
the
would
the necessary
provided
arrangements
notice
there
(i)
under
under
management's
for disregarding
in order
ballot
(s_l,pra,
April
of account
to them
80 days
to provide
on
it would
secret
to accept
the
remedy
made
the
by
out
be a settlement,
denied
mentioned
is no excuse
out and
under
Union
within
to entirely
extra-legal
The assertion
was
ure
might
choose
that
lines
leaves
opportunity
procedure--might
and
argument
fact
other
that
Stabiliza-
actually
one
gave,
previous
1948,
noted
App. 1102
26
below*) a four-day period was adequateto set in motion
the entire emergencymachinery of the Act, down to and
including the issuanceof an injunction.
When Mr. Screwer, ill justifying
his action
here, relies
on Executive
Order
10340
provided
by Congress,
a square
conflict
between
power,
The
been
on
injunctions
_ere
at
Attorney
General.
Carbide
Fed.
March
but
March
3333.
Temporary
settled
by
phone
a_d
2707.
Board
June
1948,
August
4779.
with
which
pointed
February
Exec.
Order
issued
five
reported
August
1_ed.
Reg.
between
Order
settled
of
of
_'ed.
the
by
Federal
America
Reg.
(Meat
1375.
Board
and
no
America
13
injunction
the
of
of
9970,
court
between
but
Workers
and
:Fed.
issued.
proceeding
(coal
Reg.
1579,
Dispute
and
other
as
issues
parties.
Telephone
Workers
Order
injunction
(American
No.
9959,
13
Tele-
Fed.
Reg.
Fed.
Reg.
issued.
strike----Exee.
Order
No.
9964,
13
issued.
Longshoremen's
Injunction
the
hearings
19.
Mine
Company)--Exec.
emergency
August
1950,
days
back
United
to
15
Mine
Fed.
the
President
8873.
Injunction
operate.
August
_aetal
issued.
of
649.
on
to
President
the
America
The
apboard
President
on
(coal
day
the
of
by
order
inquiry,
order
Order
settled
strike)--
restraining
board
strike--Exec.
Dispute
:Fed.
rapidity
21.
the
the
13
the
1948.
Temporary
of
9987,
The
17,
back
on
Workers
Reg.
No.
illustrates
August
reported
appointment
Non.ferrot_8
can
on
issued
the
1951,
the
and
Order
instance
inquiry
was
10106,
after
of
18
injunction
No.
This
machinery
board
on
An
strike--Exec.
issued.
a statutory
August
assistance
13
has
these_
were:
Dispute
Wor!_ers
9939
order
Union
Shipping
]948,
Reg.
of
Cerporation--Exec.
with
collateral
negotiation
Injunction
Act
six
cases
issued.
9934A,
United
in
appointed
In
These
House
Orders
American
Telegraph
the
issued.
19_8,
settled
direct
1948,
and
Relations
passage.
Chemical
No.
restraining
fund
May
had
Packin
cascs)--Exec.
t(_ pension
tion
June
its
Injunction
Order
no injunction
and
strike,--$wo
held
United
resolution
Congress
Management
the parties
Service.
str_ke>--Exec.
appointed
3009.
]259.
between
Conciliation
1945,
Labor
,$" Carbon
Reg.
remedy
way.
since
the
the
Court's
of
of
direct
negotiation
Mediation
and
Packers'
the
of the
that conflict,
the Conagainst
the dominion
of
occasions
nine
1948,
23
word
machinery
by
9934,
the
the
least
secured
March
No.
for
To resolve
of struggle
will point
emergency
invoked
exclusion
he poses
to the
was
No.
direct
which
issued.
10283,
negotia-
parties.
App. 1103
16
27
POINT
The
seizure
other
of plaintiffs'
action,
including
properties
that
Sawyer's
seizure
the
The
claimed
and
authority
Order
by its
"Constitution
and
control
Order
and
As is clear
are
States."
thereunder
or law
Court,
with
based
No.
10340.
under
the
In fact,
the
support
in
find
filed
plants
action
are
of the United
the
to
unlaw-
plaintiffs'
to be issued
memorandum
District
respect
Order
United
action
the
of
Executive
purports
provision
from
in the
with
his threatened
of employment,
of the
Mr. Sawyer's
no constitutional
behalf
of
terms
]aws
Mr. Sawyer's
of employment,
and other
facilities,
including
respect
to terms and conditions
on
and
threatened
II
States.
on Mr. Sawyer's
asserted
right
to
seize
and exercise
control
over the steel industry--including
the
right to supplant
the steel companies
in collective
bargaining and to change terms of employment--rests
a claimed
prerogative
or "inherent
power"
dent
as Chief
armed
ure
to the
and
These
purported
Executive
Mr. Sawyer's
unlimited
powers
rights
by virtue
the President
in any
exists.
declaration
as Commander
simply
position
an emergency
tive
Executive
forces.
For,
field
in. the
argument
"The
unlimited
was
thus
before
Court:
power
stated
Judge
So
you
in time
to in-
office.
exercise
he chooses
to say
view,
Executive
by Mr.
Under
virtually
that
the Execu-
is non-reviewable
the emergency
is proclaimed,
the
yond the control
of tt'm Courts.
position
of the'
claimed
of his
may
where
in Chief
are
in his counsel's
of emergency
This
solely upon
of the Presi-
and,
action
Sawyer's
once
is be-
counsel
Pine:
contend
of
the
Executive
has
an emergency?
App. 1104
28
Mr.
Baldridge:
action
He
as is necessary
The
Court:
limited,
If
power
the
to
take
such
emergency.
emergency
is great,
it is
un-
is it?
conclusion,
that there
power.
One
time
of
I suppose
that
are
is
impeachment.
The Court:
in
the
to meet
the
Mr. Baldridge:
cal
out
has
if you
is true.
But
two limitatioils
the
Then,
ballot
carry
I do want
to point
on the Executive
box
and
as I understand
emergency
the
it to its logi-
the
other
Executive
has
this
is
that
great
power.
Mr. Baldridge:
That
The Court:
And that
emergencies
and
is correct.
the Executive
the
Courts
determines
cannot
whether
it is an emergency.
Mr. Baldridgc:
That
is correct."
"The
Court:
So, when
the
Constitution,
it enumerated
the
Constitution
but
and
limited
"It
only
what
power
you
is our
to
the
concept
is presented
set
of
up
the
judiciary,
in
Conbut
it
Executive.
is the
way
we read
Article
II
(R. 377)
country,
that
and
conclusive."
of
adopted
powers
powers
of the
of the
people
say?
position
are
the
the
powers
That
Constitution."
President
This
the
the powers
Baldridgc:
of the
limited
review
(R.. 371-372)
sovereign
the
gress
even
the
unbridled
in its most
the
President
that
(R.
the
is accountable
decisions
of
the
380)
and
extreme
unchecked
posture
executive
by the
App. 1105
ac-
29
tion
here
regard
challenged.
in keeping
_dth
for the
handling
Again,
in
with
its
disregard
his employees,
while
case
is an attempt,
and solely
appropriate
any
was
the
Sawyer
without
any
industry.
mandate
collectively
has
announced
his
employees
he would
In essential
vestige
Constitution,
to bargain
that
]ud_ce.
the
Congressional
of plaintiffs'
assurance
sub
dis-
by Congress,
in the steel
the right
Mr.
a complete
under
dispute
of
the wages
to give
the
reflects
established
responsibility
an employer
to increase
declined
seizure
machinery
of the labor
flat
guaranteeing
tion
The
of the statutory
inten-
and
not
do this
analysis,
of statutory
has
this
authority
on the assertion
of inherent
executive
plaintiffs'
funds
for pa)unent
of
power,
wages
to
in
whatever
Before
amounts
Mr. Sawyer
may choose to establish.
considering
the pertinent
provisions
of the Con-
stitution,
and
the
scope
respective
branches
ment, it would appear
conmmn
law
of the
background
which
For
root
absolutism
threat
of
safeguards
framing
of centuries
against
claim
so strongly
of
an
of bloody
the
specifically
Constitution
on
the
of governthe English
affected
the
inherent
overriding
English
which
by
the
the
it confers
system
briefly
this
power
in the Executive
law is not a new one.
at the
powers
in our tripartite
in order to review
struggle
Crown.
It
Founding
limiting
of the
to overcome
was
precisely
Fathers
the
established
executive
United
the
power
in
States.
App. 1106
3O
A. The Necessary
Backgroundmihe
Successful
Struggle
have
no
extended
intention
account
century
of burdening
of the
England
over
tile
continuous
the
Against
in the Consti-
Court
with
controversy
royal
in
prerogative.
an
17th
This
is
story known
in detail by the Founding
Fathers,
known
in
basic
outline
by most Americans
and well documented
elsewhere.
See, e.g., Trevelyan,
England
Under
the Stuarts (17th Ed. 1938) ; Davis, The Early
Stuarts
1603-1660
(1937) ; Corwin,
Liberty
Agai_zst Government
(1948).
But
a brief
discussion
content
of the
larly
pertinent
here.
of the maxim
The
of that
that
present
the
and
It
ago
history
repeats
of the
authority
that
by
James
its effect
is singu-
a striking
example
to an inherent
necessary
for
consulting
was
on the
States,
itself.
Executive
under
which
and
United
we have
good--without
any
is precisely
turies
here
he considers
common
without
of the
For
claim
to do whatever
as
controversy,
Constitution
law
what
the
is not
made
I of England
right
he
views
legislature
a new
more
than
when
he
clainl.
three
cen-
claimed
for
himself
the right to make law by proclamation
and asserted
that it was treason
to maintain
that the King was under
the
law.
his
life
It is precisely
and
precisely
colonies.
lish
of the
vided
The
King
the claim
In short,
Crown
hated
James
in the
his
War
claim
throne.
for
which
Most
Charles
I lost
importantly,
it is
to exercise
United
in the
the
II
unfettered
prerogative
of Independence
States
under
the
and
form
that
the
cuhni-
establishment
of government
pro-
Constitution.
controversies
demonstrate
over
two
the
prerogative
significant
of
propositions
the
Enghsh
which
App. 1107
era-
31
phasize
the restricted
scope
of the responsibilities
ferred
upon
the President
in the United
States
stitution
First,
the
stood
at the
no such
as those
time
the
and
fully
mindful
been
required
it clear
clency,
they
scribed
The
ing
of
were
powers
Chapter
See_
39**
e.g.,
from
(1948).
of Magna
Corwin_
The
law--
office of the
Presi-
right
The
more
circum-
to the
Crown.*
in English-speak-
arbitrary
acts
of the
2 of Corwin's
story
Carta
that
the
of far
in chapter
Crown
struggle
attributed
against
success-
the
under
the
of the citizen's
property
the
bitter
a position
to protection
Gover.mne.t_t
private
Order.
Crown
then
embodied
against
and
that
those
is summarized
agai_st
Carta.
long
creating
development
Executive
the
as under-
drafted,
colonies
in establishing
than
countries
was
Fathers--fresh
to place
that,
Grown,
control
over
the Executive
of tlm American
had
English
Our Constitution
Founding
struggle
made
of the
rights
of arbitrary
now asserted
under
Second,
ful
prerogative
conCon-
Liberty
is as old as h{agna
says:
President:
Office
and
Powers
365
(3d
Ed.
1948).
_
Chapter
39
of
State
Constitutions.
this Court
held that
"intended
. And
to
Magna
Carta
In Bank
it was
of
secure
powers
of
private
rights
and
276
said:
"The
vey
the
words_
_due
meaning
Lord
Coke,
mean
due
et
al.
interpreting
same
Clmrtu.
they
distributive
from
as
in
process
v. Hoboken'
of
the
some
of
234,
arbitrary
the
the
242
early
(1819),
exercise
established
Land
:Fifth
law,'
words,
his commentary
of
the
by
in
4 Wheat.
of
the
principles
of
justice."
the
process
verbatim
v. Okely,
unrestrained
Lessee.
(1855)_
copied
individual
Gevernment,
in Murray's
How.
_72,
this Court
the
was
Columbia
and
Improveme.nt
Amendment
were
the
undoubtedly
_by tho
on
to
law
those
of
words
Co.,
intended
the
land,'
(2
lS
Constitution,
to
con-
in Magna
Inst.
50)/says
law."
'
App. 1108
32
"No
freeman
disseised
shall
be taken,
of his freehold,
or be outlawed,
or exiled,
nor
pass
will we not
At
least
five
other
property
will
not
or any
upon
him,
judgment
articles
56)
by the
deal
and
otherwise
nor
in the
give
destroyed;
peers,
Great
property
points
out,
upon
or by
Charter
seizures
assurances
that
be
customs,
will we send
wrongful
and
or
or free
of his
with
Crown,
be repeated
or imprisoned,
or liberties,
the
(Nos.
of pri-
that
they
unlawfully
taken
will be restored.
As
Professor
Corwin
Sir John
King's
famous
thesis
Bench,
treatise
of that
of the
as
Wars
continental
36)
"can
Crown
In
make
realm
burden
them,
sitions,
so that
raade
by
of
Justice
of the
Chapter
any
alteration,
without
the
against
their
own
being
deprived
other."
of them,
later
when
in the
of the
subject,
with
governed
it was to Magna
he and
strange
by such
and
laws
laws
nor
impoas are
approbation
without
by
the
the
Carta,
the
Chapter
or change
wills,
either
in
of
of England
consent
and
as early
powers
again
King
consent
securely
Coke appealed
declared
the
even
arbitrary
9 (and
that
constitutional
existed
the
out
a people
their
the limited
with
properties
Centuries
Chief
as they
Roses,
points
neither
their
that
land
British
rulers.
of the
18 years
was to contrast
of the
Fortescue
for
provisions
somewhere
around
the year 1468 wrote
his
De Laudibus
Legum. A_zgliae.
The whole
book
powers
the
Fortescue,
these
principles
as a part
other
enjoy
hazard
King
and
or
of
an),
to Fortescue,
judges
of Eng-
App. 1109
33
" * * * that
the
law
tio_s,
1354.)
and
the King
of the
hath
land
12 Coke's
no prerogative,
allows
Reports
him."
but that
(Case
which
of Proclama-
74, 77 English
Reprint
]352,
that
"The
common
the
King
anyone's
erty.)
And
has
they
in the
not
Case
the
take
(i.e.,
63; 3 Inst.
prerogatives
away
anyone's
1342, 1343,
private
prop-
12 Coke's
the
Judges
Relmrts
laid
said,
that
then
the
he should
treason
to affirm,
Bracton
said, q_od
s_b Deo et lege."
controversies
came
to a head
Ship
Mo_tey
(Tl_e
State
about
the
lawyers
Crown
was
to give
for the
greatly
offe,lded,
and
the
law, which
was
be under
Charles
Ki_g
the
Crown
:[ in the
v. John
and
Parliament
celebrated
Hampde,t_),
Case
reported
of
in
Trials
826 (1637).
What
is particularly
that case in the present
connection
is that
based
their
claims
sqlmrely
upon
claims
of "national
emergency,"
"common
defense"
"inherent
powers
of the Comnmnder
in chief."
After
England
that
as he said;
to which
I said, that
Rex no_. dcbct esse _.teb homi_w, szd
between
under
3 Howell's
interesting
King
63,
down
which
of
or prejudice
84.)
of Prohibitio_Ts,
Reprint
" * * * with
The
so limited
shall
inheritance."
(2 Inst.
77 English
the King
judgment
courts--
law
that
proclamations
had been made reciting
was then at peace there were wars
continent
of Europe,
England
was
that
in danger
the
seas
of losing
were
control
the
and
tlmt although
raging
on the
unsafe,
and
o)f the
sea
tlmt
and
App. 1110
34
of invasion,
to provide
the
Hampden)
before
His
various
General
Crown,
put
forthwith
One citizen
heard
judges
of the
and
their
counties
defense.
case was
all twelve
Solicitor
for the
required
resisted.
Chamber
courts.
The
King
ships
Attorney
in the
three
Exchequer
common-taw
General,
arguments
(John
squarely
appearing
on the
inher-
ent emergency
powers
of the King as Commander
in Chief,
and argued that in time of emergency even Magna Carta
and statutes
must give way to those "inherent
powers."
A
majority
Mr.
of
Justice
contentions
at bar,
the
"It
advanced
on behalf
doth
appear
destruction,
the
well
resist:
judge
dishonor
king
of 5Ir.
No.
of no
delay."
same
King's
views.
similar
to the
Sawyer
in Chief
was
emergencies,
of the
Professor
other
to bind
and
in the
must
case
instant,
the
aid
the King
judges
invalid,
and
asserted
that
that
of his
resort
subjects,
any
Parliament
King
admits
1087.)
prerogative
the
the
to Parlia-
at
that
and
greater
and
Trials
King's
that
and
is instant
State
king-
of ruin
and
and
danger
the
tile whole
land,
oppression,
without
see the
that
sea
and
(3 Howell's
vein,
attempted
in
can,
We
record,
by
imminent
Whether
ments?
In the
both
is present,
than
slowly
the
surprisingly
by this
is in danger,
danger
mander
accepted
in words
said:
dom
which
judges
Crawley,
statute
as
Com-
moved
too
the
sole
was
necessity.*
Corwin
(The
President:
Office and
Powers
494_ fn.
70)
says:
Stuart
theory is Justice
Vernon's
state'The King pro bona publioo may charge
defense of the kingdom, notwithstanding
statute
derogatory
from the prerogative
the king may dispense
with any law in
l_ex v. Bampden,
3 S. T. 825 (1637)."
App. 1111
35
A minority
the
King.
Justice
and
But
(author
of his
impeached
the
and
laws
the realm
of England;
duce all arbitrary
and
The judgment
and
]lad
against
In 1640 Mr.
above
voted
quoted)
for
_ against
the laws
the
King
and
to the
to subvert
govermnent
and instead
thereof,
tyrannical
government
State
Trials
Money
of
to introagainst
1283).
case itself
was
(iirected
as being
of tlie realm,
and contrary
Trials
endeavored
established
to be cancelled
of property,
State
interesting.
wickedly'
in the Ship
by Parliament
liament
voted
statement
who
* * * " (3 Howell's
" **
Croke,
for having
fundamental
law
by
was
of
colleagues
" * * * traitorously
the
headed
tile aftermath
Crawley
some
were
of judges,
to former
Petition
the
subject's
resolutions
of l_ight"*
right
in Par-
(3 Howell's
1261).
posed
his
views,
the Seven
there
Bishops
was
that
"If
a reaction;
(12 ttowell's
tice Powell
declared
that
"amounts
to an abrogation
and
for seditious
State
libel those
who
and
Case
Trials
in the
183) Mr.
opof
Jus-
the claimed
royal
prerogative
and utter repeal of all the laws }'
:
this
ment;
a thing
be once
all
the
allowed
legislature
worth
considering."
of, there
will need
will be in the
(12 ttowell's
no parlia-
king,
State
which
is
Trials
427.)
3 Car. I_ c. 1 (1628).
"
App. 1112
36
The
culmination
passage
under
(t Will.
& Mary
the
Sess.
of our
the following
own
of
of the
English
Bill
limited
respects
That
e.xile
2, c. 2 (1688)),
specifically
"1.
the
his successors
provisions
document
was
James
are
powers
laws,
pretended
hath
Thus,
the
or the
been
of
assumed
seizure
and
of the
of property
Parliament
was
In the
decades
American
the
Carta
the
and
the
of
Crown
the
were
of
struggle,
attempts
of and
of British
to enforce
latures
of the
Tucker
with
authority,
the
as it
is illegal."
English
without
War
people,
authority
their
George
III
and
the
colonists
as
Bill
"has
of
against
affected
constantly
appealed
under
King,
he "has
without
to render
at the beginning
of the First
886 et seq.
Civil
Cantiueutal
the
Decla-
among
consent
the
Power."
denounced
as tyrannical
the
kept
the
to, the
were
Magna
In cataloging
the
generals
rule
the
struggle
ministers.
Englishmen
of Rights.
colonies
own
his
superior
martial
various
of Independence
with
colonists
and
lution
of dispensing
faced
rights
English
the
legislature"
independent
of
with-
bloody struggle,
finally
estabunder the law. It was clear that
ration
of Independence
states
that
in times of peace, standing
Armies
our
in
suspending
of late,
18th century,
preceding
fundamental
grievances
That
Crown
authority,
by regal
exercised
by the
actions
Throughout
to their
of
illegal.
colonists
against
power
of laws
taken.
of the
power
pretended
execution
by the start
many
the
That
the
of Rights
which
and
Bill
from
of Rights
the
II
us,
of
military
Various
of the
Revo-
by the legisand
Congress
despotic.
quoted
App. 1113
in 2
37
See Whyte;
L. Rev.
The
War
Powers
of the Preside_t
It was
against
this
background
Fathers
drafted
our Constitution.
bates,
as
graphic
long
people
in
that
excesses
the
the
reported
clarity
recent
and
the
of the
and
of
and
of other
from
the
mffettered
and
many
of
firmly
had
in mind
the
been
the
colonies
waged
European
at first
exercise
them
with
by
countries,
rogative,
reveal
against
that
the royal
the law.*
resulting
hand
of the
lawyers
the evil
royal
deeply
pl:e-
read
in
constitutional
history
of the mother
country--drafted
own Constitution.
It is against
this real fear of uncon-
trolled
tution
B.
]lad
Crown
struggle
England
Journal,
delegates
English
costly
file delegates--all
the
our
XfYis.
that
the Founding
The constitutional
de-
Madison's
such as Holland,
before
scribed and placed under
that
[1943]
205, 210.
executive
action that
must be considered.
The
for
As
Constitution
Mr.
Sawyer's
is well
the
Provides
No
Other
Actions.
the
framers
known,
provisions
Authority
of the
for
of the
the
Seizure
that in a tripartite
form of governmentlay
safeguards
of the people's
liberties.**
took especial
of executive
care, therefore,
and le_slative
I, sec. 1 of the
in. Congress
alone
I, sec. 8 enumerates
all
or
Constitution
lieved firmly
of the surest
Article
Consti-
beone
They
to prevent
any concentration
powers
in the same hands.
Constitution
unequivocally
vests
legislative
powers
granted:
Article
powers
granted
to Congress--includ-
Madison's
.]ournal,
reprinted
in tt. l_. Dec. No. 398, 69th Cong.,.lst
109 (1927),
at, e.g.. :132-13_, 149-151, 397, 417-421.
** See, e.g. Madison
in The Federalist,
Kilbo_trn v. Thompson,
]03 U. 8. 168 (188]).
Nos.
47
and
48;
and
Bess.
compare
App. 1114
38
ing the power
to "lay and collect
and Excises,
to pay the debts and
Defense
"to
and
general
regulate
relating
Section
Laws
Welfare
commerce
which
shall
or in any
fashion
exclusive
power
and
defense
and propel'
for carrying
of the United
States,
[el.
thereof"
Constitution
places
all laws
nation.
The
emergencies,
of America"
and
sponsibilities
assigned
ment,
are
relies
just
for
"Section
Chief
the
"Section
that
The
duty
function--to
the
legisla-
otherwise,
in Article
1I.
It
upon
in keeping
and
which
power.
system
The
re-
with
the
of govern-
adaninistrative.
Mr. Sawyer
in addition
The
apparently
to the
clause
these:
2.
Mihtia
actual
and
that
to the tripartite
executive
The
of the Army
of the
to define
are
for
military
the
the weffare
responsibility
to the President,
basic
of the Article
quoted,
In this
in Congress
necessary
both
proceeds
as authority
18].
intrinsically
provisions
into
or Officer
the
of powers
powers
in tile (overnment
with a provision
shall be vested
division
several
is categorically
vested in Congress.
The office of the Presidency
is covered
opens
Power
[cl. 1] ;
vested
to enact
with
States"
Powers
of the
tion to cope
Imports
common
and waging
of war [el. 11-16].
the authorization
"To make all
Powers,
Department
clear-cut
of the United
be necessary
the foregoing
by this Constitution
Duties,
for the
to the declaration
8 concludes
with
execution
Taxes,
provide
and
of the
Service
3.
Laws
President
shall
Navy
several
of the
be
of the
United
States,
United
Commander
States,
and
called
into
when
States;
* * *
* * * he [the
President]
shall
be faithfully
executed
* _ "
to execute
implement
the
laws
and
is by its
administer
terms
the
in
take
Care
an executive
laws
enacted
App. 1115
39
113' Congress.*
It
history
and
dent's
military
settled
or
The
auy
Although
Order
10340,
a power
observed
military
any
as he deems
express
best
that
power
for the
or otherwise.
provides
to take
public
judge
extraordinary
of them.
Thus
time
to time
the
power
is reposed
exclusively
shell
those
executing
executive
officers
power
295
_" Cf.
U.
Story,
and
in
of
power
executive
to
quate
that
Senate,
the
the
President
"Article
Oovcrnmeat_
Le.,
was
The
explains
[i.e.,
means
expressly
002,
626
section
to
may
legal
occasions,
the
that
"the
President
executhe
the Executive
8. 52, 163-]64
remove
grants
general
inci-
Branch
(1926),
a postmaster
to
the
with-
President
administrative
of appointment
in the Myers
in
1562
provision
may
the
provide
the
control
and
removal
case with regard
H_mphrey's
of
of
to
E:rccator
v.
U_ited
where
the
author
(]935).
Constitution,
this
in
II
the
disapproved
or either
Branch.
functioning
of
8totes,
27'_ U.
the
3,
"give
_n.a.y "on
Houses
and
grants
the laws,
including
the power
_ N * ,, 0ertnin
broad
language
S.
and
both
provision
stated
Section
shall
extraordinary
Presidentt"
to insure
the
Myers
v. United
holding
the
of
"Occasions
ernment
with
in
in an emerII,
expedient"
and
action
in the Legislative
vested
required
See
Court
assent
8totes,
Executive
President
measures
ordinary
together
be
authority
Government.
the
justifies
both
previsiou_
Power
executive
ques-
pursuant
Article
the
convene
to frame
on
'* This
and
occasions"**
remedies,
the
not
either
On the contrary,
from
necessary
shall
out
do
or related
from
interest,
he
where
functions
such undefined
Information
as to the
to their
Consideration
dental
of the
the
to be acting
to the Congress
and recommend
tive
to
of
on war
case
Presi-
direction
as is apparent
in this
tile
is limited
asserted
to exist in a national
emergency,
it will be
that
the Constitution
nowhere
confides
in the
Executive
gency
function--the
Executive,
of both
that
in Chief
to legislate
elahued
a matter
interpretation,
President's
power
the
as
as Commander
executive
forces.
encompass
tions.
cleat',
judicial
power
a command
arrued
is equally
arise
President
to mitigate
by
in
the
and
(Cooley's
Ed.
1873)
stating:
reocss
Congress
or overcome
of
Congress
together]
_nexpected
requiring
* * * to
the
Gov-
pro_ide
ade-
calamities."
App. 1116
4O
If
there
is any
such
thing
herent
in the Federal
it is in Congress,
and
I,
Section
8, Clause
government
not in the
people,
and
of powers"
supra,
p.
is not
vested
IX and X.
branch
of our
under,
Constitution.
like
not
above,
Congress,
possesses
Constitution.
parte
Ex
Milligatb
States,
tile
no
p(_rte
4 Wall.
334 U.
power
@dri_,
779
peace
or in war
be scrupulously
spective
powers
assigned
U. S. at 779.)
If executive
tional
action
provisions
is not
the
concept,
ship,
of "inherent
yond
those
in Toledo,
There
specifically
Peoria
and
that
both
the
Government
by
the
that
keep
Wester_
the
under
these
the
to monarchy
by the
the
(334
constitu-
to Congressional
under
re-
within
Constitution."
stat-
Constitution
and
or a "residuum
granted
219
Constitution
particularly
pursuant
powers"
v. United
v. Mayes,
case :
is no place
familiar
; Lichter
Hou,se
authorized
or taken
ute, it is invalid.
for
to each
is
President,
derived
(1866)
and
of the
Government
the
it is essential
branches
President,
; Ex
(1948);
obeyed,
either
or to
from
upon
States
The
not
any
317 U. S. 1, 25 (1942)
2, 136-137
S. 742,
That
in the
38.
conferred
expressly
is reserved
to the
therefore
in-
under
the Constitution,
President,
under
Article
18, quoted
"residuum
of power"
not
the President
or Congress
the
as a "residuum
dictator-
of powers"
charter.
As
R. R. v. Stover,
bestated
60 F. Supp.
executive
exceed
and
the
granted
the
department
powers
Congress,
to
it,
granted
and
or
of our
to it by
if it does
attempts
government
to
the
Constitution
exercise
exercise
cannot
a power
not
power
not
App. 1117
41
granted to it, or attempts to exercise a power in a
manner not authorized by statutory enactment,such
executive act is of no legal effect."
In
Fed.
United
311 (D.
1921),
out
remanded
ttand
that
power
contention
the
Hand
_'The implications
right,
are
without
(2d
of bill
Judge
no) power
landing
withN.
possesses
interest.
to prevent
its
had
Cir.
Augustus
in tlle public
cable
asserted
in
a
the
,the.execu-
independently
of statute
said :
o[ the power
very
an)'
893
dismissal
had
from
Co., 272
the President
this nmtter
Judge
government
that
presidents
to regulate
years,
for
(1922),
President
although
Telegraph
272 Fed.
to legislate
company
States,
for fifty
aft'd,
S. 754
power
cable
United
192].),
U.
the
or other
In holding
Unio_
by stipulation
260
rejected
domestic
v. Western
C. N. .
prejudice,
inherent
tive
States
great.
contended
If
legislative
the
for by the
President
sanction,
has
the
to prevent
the
landing
of cables, why has he not a right to prevent
the importation
of opium
on the ground
that it is a
deleterious
because
See,
drug,
such
this
country
Fed.
at 31.5.)
to similar
Presidency.
139-140
(1916)
"The
which
specific
within
its
the
importation
of silk
inay
tend
and
the
national
injure
effect,
Taft,
conceive
or
importation
William
Our
Howard
to reduce
Magistrate
of the
Executive
steel
welfare?"
Taft's
Chief
or
wages
study
and
His
in
(272
of the
Powers,
true
view
it, that
the
Presiden.t
cap,not
be fairly
and
grant
of power
or _ustly
such
exarcise.
express
Such
grant
specific
functions
can
exercise
reasonably
grant
traced
implied
as proper
must
is, as I
no power
and
and
to some
included
necessary
be either
to
in the
App. 1118
42
Federal Constitution or in an act of Congresspassed
in pursuance thereof.
There
can
is _o u_zdefi_ed
exercise
lic interest,
because
and
its definition
plainly
must
be justified
or
It is against
As
this
Mr. Justice
epitomizes
society.
into
Massachusetts
not indulging
aim
laration
John
who,
of laws
terms
may
pronounced
So challenged,
Constitution
and
must
be
opin-
of America,
of laws
with
and
and
of rule
be challenged
by this
this seizure
is necessarily
put
him,
phrase
he was
He was
express-
framed
the
founded
by fiat,
an
Dec-
the
Repubhc.
was
the rejec-
whether
power.
by
not
of our
that
of Rights
not of men'
or private
and
character
Adams
flourish.
of Independence
in positive
as finally
Workers
Declaration
of those
of governmental
protec-
in his concurring
Mine
not
so carefully
seizure
the distinguishing
fiat
juris-
it does
lasting
'a government
When
tion
his
in a rhetorical
'A government
government
grants
by affirmative
or
this
said
phrase
political
the
and
or in other
but
to insure
that
v. Uuited
historic
hun,
framework,
Frankfurter
of men'
ing
case
The
vindicated
Fathers
liberties,
States
the
States,
provision,
constitutional
for
and
statutory
citizen's
ion in United
to be in the pub-
an inference.
marked
by the Founding
tion of the
tested.
he
power
are necessarily
in general
terms
to embarrass
the Executive
within
the
constitutional
exist."
wrought
such
which
in the Neagle
of the United
of action
diction
of power
to him
is nothing
warranting
of Executive
in order
not
field
it seems
there
of a law
precedents,
residuum
by the
Every
appeal
act
of
to law,
Court."
cannot
be squared
with the
invahd.
Far from finding
App. 1119
43
support
in the
cisely
the
type
government
C. This
of rule
of laws
Seizure,
tive
Far
The
plainly
of
within
be followed
Being
of pre-
no place
in a
the
Under
Laws,
the
Execu-
is in Conflict
With
by Congress.
labor
the
can have
Authorized
to Execute
proceeding
handling
example
not of men.
from
as Enacted
present
it is a classic
by fiat which
and
Responsibility
the Laws
the
Constitution,
involves
disputes
province
in dealing
of
with
a continning
of national
Congress.
these
problem-importance--
Procedures
disputes
call
to
for
Con-
gressional
action.
There
can be no argument
about this.
And Congress
has acted.
After
extensive
consideration
: and
mature
deliberation
Management
Relations
governing
security.
The
labor
disputes
Constitution
ful execution
failed
the Labor
charges
this
of
enacted,
1947,
affecting
of the laws.
to discharge
apply
Congress
Act
the
the
President
with
Relations
has seized
plaintiffs'
private
plaintiffs
in their
collective
bargaining
and
threatens
now
whatever
scale
disruptive
to use plaintiffs'
he chooses
to adopt.
and undemocratic
as a means
by executive
action
In the first
that
faithhe has
and
has
The apphcable
refused
ignored.
Instead
of the Executive
property
and supplanted
with their
funds
employees,
to pay
wages
Seizure--precisely
which
to
at
the
Congress
rejected
of handhng
labor disputes--has
been applied
fiat. On its face this action cannot be defended
as the execution
of the laws
cisely the reverse.
lished
the
or
Act.
procedures
provided
in the Act have been
Mr. Sawyer,
under the purported
authority
Order,
health
controversy
responsibility
Labor
legislation
national
In the present
Management
in the
detailed
years
under
of the
the
of the United
Republic,
Constitution
States;
this Court
there
could
it is pre-
firmly
estab-
be no execu-
App. 1120
44
tive encroachmenton authority vestedby the Constitution
in Congress.In Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch 170 (1S04), this
Court_
speaking
rejected
the
through
attempt
sional power.
That case involved
to stop
suspected
authorized
the
ships
examine
bound
any
This
seized
to pay
seas
American
such
vessels
damages
for the
whether
power
seizure
Acting
in the
absence
of vessels
Little
bound
from
affirmed
owner
seizure.
these
and
seized
port.
directed
Captain
Court,
after
would
of Congressional
in the
under
stopped
which
The
restored
Little
first
have
action
illicit
and
to any
all American
a French
the President
engaged
traffic
an order
and
on the
of the statute
accompanied
ports.
Captain
copies
vessels,
French
to its
under
sailing
to seize
a vessel
port
vessels
them
unanimously
vessel
French
directing
to or from
Court
in 1799 sus-
in the prohibited
of any
instructions,
on the high
sharply
Congres-
provisiou
authorized
the
of United
States
armed
of engaging
seizure
instructions
presidential
the
to any
ports.
President
Adams
sent
commanders
of United
States
by written
Marshall,
to usurp
by Congress
A further
conmlanders
and
high seas
French
to the
to proceed
of forfeiture.
to instruct
vessels
Justice
President
intercourse
between
the United
States
the mldeclared
naval war between
the
act provided
that
no 2unerican
vessel
be permitted
penalty
President
the
an act passed
pending
commercial
and France
during
two nations.
The
should
Chief
by
traffic,
pos-
had
the
to order
the
pointed
out
that Congress
had prescribed
by its legislation
the manner
in which seizures
were to be carried
into execution
and had
excluded
the
to a French
This
Court
that
the
President
care
that
the
seizure
of any
port.*
The
there
laws
said,
of
bc
the
Court
Cranch
United
faithfully
vessel
bolmd
held
170,
States,
exeeuted_
that,
177:
whose
_ and
from
even
"It
is
high
who
by
duty
is
rather
than
though
no
it
means
is
commander
App. 1121
the
clear
to
'take
in
chief
45"
executive
vessels
lated
construction
bound
from
to hmrease
Executive
had
Commander
cuting
a few years
holding
sitting
on Circuit,
There
had forbidden
but
provision
tain
ever,
of law
vessels
in their
10 Fed.
Acts
was
calcuthe
authorized
by Congress.
v. Barreme,
of this
Bee in Gilchrist
of the Jefferson
to trade
Collectors
Adminiswith foreign
to continue.
One
of Customs
on a coastwise
the intention
as
exe-
Johnson
Judge
shipping
bound
power
of faithfully
in Little
Cas.
to
legislation,
his general
guise
vessels
coastwise
opinion,
the
by Mr. Justice
American
ostensibly
the
and District
Embargo
permitted
the Embargo
instructions
lector
the
under
of seizure
ports)
of
the decision
made
of Charleston,
tration
power
after
was
1808).
ports,
either
or lmder
to expand
0nly
v. Collector
effectiveness
no right,
in Chief
a similar
the
as well as to French
the
the laws,
Court,
(extending
voyage,
is to violate
to de"when-
or evade"
Act.
The Secretary
of the Treasury,
under
from President
Jefferson,
instructed
the Col-
of Customs
at Charleston
to detain
all vessels
carry-
ing specified
cargoes,
regardless
of where they were bound
or whether
the Collector
had any reason to believe that there
was
an intention
of the armies
to evade
and navies
the Act.
of the United
States,
m_ght
not, without
authority
for that purpose,
in the then existing
state of things,
powered
the officers commanding
the armed
vessels of the United
seize and send into port for adjudication,
American
vessels which
any
special
have emStates,
to
were for-
the legislature
seems to have prescribed
that the manner
shall be carried
into execution
was to exclude u seizure
bound
to a French
port."
in which this
of any vessel
law
not
App. 1122
46
The
Court
rejected
this
attempted
expansion,
by Presi-
dential
order, of the detention
provisions
laid down by statute, and issued a mandamus
against
the Collector
to compel
him to clear the vessels which he had detained
under Presidential
instructions.
The
basic
judiciary
to strike
as controlling
Barre_ne
that
ple
was
today
the
executive
stay
adapted
caused
in the
time
There
the
the
out
are
of Little
basic
of law
action
with
their
v.
princi-
bounds
of executive
to be compatible
to carrying
the
encroaclmmnt
within
the rejection
be said
and
were
must
which
executive
v. Collector.
to require
Congress
the
as they
Gitchrist
plausibly
principles
down
and
held
might
constitutional
the
which
Acts
general
of
intent.
actions
laws passed
The
be said
Labor
on
expiration
of the War
Following
June
the
in
on
courts
authority
no
reeord
answer
to
they
_"
The
certain
war,
the
Fed.
the
Attorney
War
its
cessation
of
hostilities
declaration
12
Fed.
Reg.
The
authorization
law
is not
terms
new
having
was
week
Collector,
thn
by
at
359
seq.)
mandamus
case
an
]=[is
with
explanation
views
are
substantially
at
seize
six
months
in
World
been
by
before
the
(10
an
of
Cas.
to Presithat
the
Executive
Order,
of impeachment
thereupon
placed
his
opinion
particularly
every
Fed.
General
argued
and
apposite,
argument
made
an
since
by
Mr.
bar.
Act_
to
enacted
report
rendered
by the Attorney
which
the Attorney
General
interfere
to the
disputes.
Act. _*
of the President
was _Cto the court
to the courts.
Mr. Justice
Johnson
Disputes
conditions
by
2714,
the
one
Disputes
v.
labor
Act
just
Gilchrist
General.
Labor
expired
in
demolish,
in
specified
dential
Gas.
and
counsel
Labor
to
(10
anticipate,
8awyer's
1947,
an opinion
subject,
in
that
the responsibility
to the nation"
and not
on
by
full
the
to give effect
emergency
Relations
23,
decision
at 357)
quotes
dent
Jefferson
had
covering
Management
Congress
and
and
to be calculated
by Congress
which
had
facilities
after
War
made
authorized
necessary
the
II,
on
the
for
declaration
i.e.,
on
by
June
30_
31,
1946
December
President
under
prusecutioa
the
of
President
1947_
the
the
of
Presi-
(Proclamation
1).
of
or
seizure
unfamiliar
in particular
to
Congress.
cases
and
At
ninny
within
times
limits
in
the
App. 1123
laid
past,
down
and
47
The
pattern
agement
established
Relations
dispute
cannot
vided
Act
be resolved
by the Act,
problem
authorized.
posed,
to
firmly
The
the
and
during
President
Congress
Congress,
the problem
by Congress
for
when
(s_tpra,
clear.
the
rejected
If
80-day
is to report
its action.
the device
formally
Executive
in the Labor
is unmistakably
Man-
the labor
period
pro-
the enlergency
Seizure
of seizure
its use
was not
was pro-
ill dealing
with
p. 22).
Order
and
Mr.
Sawyer's
action
must
be
considered
in the framework
of this unequivocal
Congressional action.
It is difficult to conceive
of Executive
action
more
directly
On
inconsistent
every
proper
with
occasion
Congressional
which
seizure,
Congress
has expressed
the Emergency
Powers
Interim
authorized
emergency
short-term
statutes,
ing contained
"shall
now,
be construed
Congress
has
problems
affecting
gressional
authorization
authorized
the
seizure
national
of
31, 1862);
Defense
Act
as
designated
provided
seizure
a method
interest.
seizure
and
that
noth-
by the
are
Telegraph
as
Lines
extended,
which are
o:f dealing
Outstanding
govern-
with
specific
examples
of
Con-
32
Star.
follows:
Seizure
Act
e. 134,
120,
39
Control
Act
of
1916,
c. 418,
1,
39
Star.
645
Service
Act
of
1940,
e. 720,
9_ 54
Stat.
892
of
1916,
of
1862,
c. 45,
Star.
213-214
(June
Transportation
(August
-9,
System
1916);
Selective'Training
(September
War
(June
certain
pointedly
this
In passing
Act, which
authority
of any act herein
owned plants
or facilities
(January
National
3, 1916)
of
to authorize
Railroad
334
since
its opposition.
Continuation
extension
Congress
intent.
arisen
in the Act
ment, under
the
of any privately
even
has
16,
Labor
25,
Disputes
Act
of
1943,
e. 144,
3-6,
57
Star.
164-166
3943);
Universal
Military
1, :18, 62 Stat.
Defense
(September
and
1940);
625
Production
8, 1950);
Training
(June
24,
and
1948)
Service
Act
of
194S,
e.
625,
Title
Act
of 1950,
e. 932_ Title
2, 201,
64
c. 275, Title
1, 102(b),
65 star.
132
Star.
(July
799
31,
1951).
App. 1124
48
not
public
Sess.
5, April
Similarly
mental
that
the
(Pub.
Senate,
of the
in passing
Act
funds
of enforcing
4192, 4216
Rec.
Office
of 1952,
Executive
(April
Federal
(April
Security
4626 (April
The
Appropriation,
situation
is precisely
and
deemed
funds
for
illegal
ratified
the
Co. v. U_.ited
sistent
with
ment,*
Congress
must
also
wartime
States,
by
by placing
Treasury
inthis
and
98
29, 1952)
Cong.
; LaborRec. 4621,
has
be contrasted
curfew
program
320 U. S. 81 (1943).
has
in which
on
occasion
appropriation
See,
e.g.,
of
Isbra_dtsen-
issue
seizure.
of the Executive
in this
joint
the President,
upheld
There,
making
exercise
its obinstance
of the
exemplified
in Hirabayashi
in affirming
Con-
of govern-
expressed
the
with
system
and
with
and
of a statute
subsequent
of our
taken
of that
action
purpose.
States,
the dignity
by Congress
of violation
(April
the
98 Cong.
1953,
the converse
the
to the unwarranted
unauthorized
action
powers
See
for
two later
1953, 98 Cong.
executive
particular
Moller
jection
The
10340.
its view
measures.
4617
provided
29, 1952).
unauthorized
been
2d
Supple-
be used
In at least
Appropriations,
28, 1952),
Third
specifically
shall
Order
21, 1952).
Departments
4579
on the
appropriated
stances
the Senate
has reiterated
same prohibition
on appropriation
Post
Cong.,
14, 1952.)
Appropriations
none
purpose
Rec.
utilities."
war
by the
v. United
a conviction
it a misdemeanor
to dis-
App. 1125
49
obey
curfew
orders
pursuant
to an
the statute
had
The
Court,
promulgated
executive
order, this
ratified
and confirmed
after
emphasizing
conviction
was based
few order,
pointed
cooperative
The
by military
Executive
and
in essence
of Congress
action
Court concluded
that
the executive
order.
the statute
contemplated
out that
action
that
on which
authorized
the
and
under
commanders
the cur-
case involved
the
scrutiny
the
the
Executive.
here
lies at precisely
the opposite
end of the spectrum.
Congress
has explicitly
refused
to authorize
the use of seizure in the type of situation
here
presented.
the emergency
machinery
Management
Executive
spheres
/t quite
And
operate
inquiry
which
smoothly
remains
to take
the
production
facilities
Universal
any
Training
625; 50 U. S. C. A. App.
fense
Production
65 Star.
132;
Act
50 U.
their
respective
chose
other
and
468)
and
of 1950,
to follow
law
are
of
Section
Seryice
Section
as amended
S. C. A. App.
the
the
the seizure
of plainauthorize
seizure
of
by the President
Military
in the Labor
and
within
whether
of
Congress
Executive
course.
United
States furnishes
authority
for
tiffs' properties.
The only laws which
.any
advantage
by Congress
Act--under
of responsibility--the
different
and contrary
The
than
provided
Relations
would
rather
2081).
Act
18 of
(62 Star.
201 of the
(64
Star.
See
De799,
Appendix,
_tfra.
Mr.
District
freely
Saw_,er's
counsel
in
their
memorandum
conclusively
Section
that
that
no claim
could
]8 of the U_iversal
provides
it is in the
prompt
the
ice Act
in
delivery
that,
interest
of any
upon
be made
Military
the
of the
articles
to the
contrary.
Traipsing
President's
national
other statutes.
demonstrates
a_d Serv-
determination
security
or materials,
to obtain
the
procure-
App. 1126
5O
ment of which has beenauthorizedby Congressexclusively
for the use of the armed forces or the Atomic Energy
Commission, the United States is authorized to place
orders for such articles or materials. The order must
specifically
state
that
it is being
provisions
of the
section.
an order
is placed
refuses
is authorized
son's
to
plant
and
articles
or
States.
Plaintiffs
to the
Section
time
preparation
and
property
that
all
hausted,
property
section
is
other
and
(ii)
upon
requisitioned
specifically
the
United
pursuant
Act
of 1950, as
(i)
demonstrates
seizure
during
after
for
the
fixing
and
the
only
this
national
have
of
of
that
defense
use
value
President
personal
determination
its
payment
the
of real
even
defense.
obtaining
forbids
also
to requisition
essential
of
but
property
for
only
means
per-
placed
unrestricted
President
then
that
of such
by
order
Production
industrial
the
of
production
required
no
such
President
section.*
against
private
of urgent
the
be
of the Defense
It authorizes
property.,
the
to the
whom
possession
of Congress
personal
may
with
it for
received
of this
201(a)
the policy
as
have
pursuant
person
inunediate
materials
not
the
or fails
to operate
provisions
amended,
and
take
If
placed
the
its
and
been
ex-
personal
value.
The
to requisition
real
property.
Section
201(b)
excludes
by providing
that,
interest
of national
institution
of
executive
seizure
of real
ff its acquisition
is necessary
defense,
the President
is confined
regular
condemnation
proceedings
estate,
in the
to the
in
the
courts.
that
Uncoutroverted
this is true as
sworn statements
of the plaintiffs'
to U. S. 8reel (R. 83);
Bethlehem
(R. 163);
and Youngstown
the other
plaintiffs.
(R.
17).
There
executives
(R. 119);
is no contrary
claim
disclose
Republic
as to any of
App. 1127
51
Moreover,
Congress
in Title
expressed
cedure
for
national
the
settlement
defense."
thorize
agement,
with
action
1950 are
expressly
labor
worth
as well as personal
real
The
estate
of 1947
was
has
to
of
Title
settlement
That
of
Congressional
stringent
is
clear.
"The
The
It.
requisitioning
has
_rms
been
Q _
:No.
to
is
upon
that
unable
" "
the
desirous
the
obtain
8]st
thus
far
laws
Act
of
1951 amendreal
Alnendment
he was
estate
of Jtfly
to requisigiven
instead
to institute
con-
pursuant
to
been
seizure
earlier
has
and
Cong.,
is a drastic
of
public.
authority
to
net
the
2759,
to requisition
committee
requiring
to the
determination
against
respect
Rep.
power
have
no
Man-
implemented
with
re-
disputes.
policy
With
eliminated),
defense
Labor
authority
and
in don-
applicable
authority
merely
in the courts.**
labor
that
to requisition
away,
marl-
(Section
503.)
Production
By the
no
on to auauthorizes
between
other
of the Defense
Production
acquire
either
real
or
provisions
the
or
Act, prior
made
goes
and
of the
(Section
Defense
President
taken
the
national
President
The
(now
Act
more limited
proceedings
any provisions
no action
to
thereunder.
_*
affecting
provisions
That
affecting
however,
the
property.
(65 Stat.
the much
detonation
spect
provided,
disputes
the
pro-
of the public.
with
noting.
Act,
be effective
Act
conferences
authorized
31, 1951
The
representatives
ments,
tion
501.)
voluntary
and
Production
disputes
to initiate
Relations
should
The
of labor
facilities,
inconsistent
agement
there
conciliation
Congress
nection
Defense
"that
and
labor
502.)*
the
(Section
mediation
the President
V of
its intent
2d
Scss.
exercise
reducing
to
Provisions
cannot
be
the
property
steadily
me, re
of
become
drastic
4
(1950)
the
minimnm
the
have
therefore
been
on
unless
fair
said:
sovereign
the
exercised
the
and
more
provisions
power.
effect
inserted,
President
reasonable
App. 1128
of
52
We have,
then,
unauthorized
contrary
gress
the
a situation
by any
where
existing
this
act
to the
procedures
specifically
every
applicable
statute
in
present
seizure
not
of Congress
laid
for
but
down
dealing
only is
is flatly
by
Con-
with
just
situation.
D. The Seizure and Mr. Sawyer's Other Actions Cannot Be Justified Under the President's Power as Commander in Chief.
Paralleling
the responsibility
execution
military
function
Navy..
The
of the
colonies
firmly
in mind,
function
the
"In
the
conferred
of direction
this
of military
of the
with
King
the
respect
his
Army
the
and
his
President
" Several
to Congress
claimed and
according
to
generals
the
limited
operations.
As
stated
would
be nominally
more
authority
than
the
supreme
and
naval
command
forces
and
in
which,
by the
appertain
the
Constitution
to the
under
in
to
direc-
* * * ; while
of the British
king extends
to the declaring
and to the raising
and regulating
of fleets and
would
and
grievances
--all
the
No. 69:
English
upon
for
is the President's
in Chief
Convention,
against
Executive
by Congress
as Commander
Constitutional
Federalist,
as Chief
that
of war
armies,
consideration,
legislature."*
power to declare
war, grant letters
of marque and reprisal,
concerning
captures
on land and water.
Likewise
according
it was still a part of the Crown's prerogative
to organize
and
App. 1129
53
As
the
we have
defense
support
seen,
of the
Congress
armed
under
President's
related
are
within
the
the Executive
which to protect
Constitution
has
power
them."
1, 26 (1942)
Cir.
Court
powers
; O'Neal
1944),
the
on the
war
and
1375, 87 L. Ed.
and
As
was
of additional
Lichter
laws
v. United
_)(irte
Sh_tes,
by
the
the
States,
Q uirin,
317 U. S.
140 F. 2d 908,
does
locate,
ration,
etc.]
power'
with
experience,
stone's
King
to
the
911
As the
specifically
transferred
also
Story,
of
Book
regarded
The
rather
country
President,
is
part
principal
war
any
drastic
which
in
the
falls
the
colonists)
7 and
Constitution
Constitution,
war
to
13.
declared
It
See,
the
legislative
Ed.
Arlny
power
legis[to
the
is
by
in
al-
'legis-
invested
Blackstone
generally,
is noteworthy
prerogative
of the
power
within
authority.
executive
power
Congress
was
Parliamentary
the
Hira-
of the
not include
necessarily
of
conferred
I_iyoski
* * Such
1, Chapters
as
than
the
American
independent
Commentaries,
powers,
this
on the
nature
lative
the
legislative
as Commander-in-Chief
and
in its
in
States,
1774,
arises
Navy
lative
See
Laws
war profiteering,
not to this Court,
are
power
v. United
President
these
is
of our
rationing
Congress
bayashi
in
den.led,
forces.
of Congress.
; Ex
v. United
cert.
to establish
:
"While
be
also
and
ties and
executive
actual
See
(1948)
in
The
maintenance
Corp.,
is in need
765-766
placed
nature
arlned
the
the nation
against
given to Congress,
to make
334 U. S. 742,
(6th
Steel
the
Constitution.
in
sole domain
to
and
specifically
of the
and
relating
of war,
ntilitary
of war
in U. S. v. Bethlehem.
"if
was
to the direction
defenses
laws
8 of tile
is purely
to the conduct
(1942),
to enact
the prosecution
I, see.
relating
said
power
forces,
Art.
power
directly
tile
of the nation,
to
Black-
tlmt
England,
all
of
were
branch.
1873).
App. 1130
54
(Art.
I, Section
1, U.
S. Constitution)."
(140
F. 2d
at 911.)*
The
in
limits
Chief
It has
is
on the
have
long
been
strictly
power
been
of the President
clearly
settled
military
that
in
as Commander
delineated
under
by
this
character,
the
this
Court.
authority,
which
President
has
the
power
to control
civilian
activity
only where
the emergency
is so imminent
and the threat
of military
danger
to the nation
so pressing
that the slightest
delay
would
lead
to disaster;
court
review.
Mitchell
See
v. Har_nony,
to
provide
Ez
Parte
H
the
award
into
Wall.
private
Mexico
the
Army
damages
by
the
the
it is said
Milli-
to
Congress
injury
consent
of
Congress."
October
the
President
Term,
courts
in
jurisdiction
Articles
in
of
all
respects7
the
country,
decided
where
which
they
of
War.
of
alia:
Commander
areas,
that
following
1951,
as
occupied
held
seizure
inter
the
411,
trader
who
the
accompanied
Mexican
distance
nppellant_
and
the
enemy
Mitchell_
"train
for
affirmed
an
with
April
in
Chief
Congress
had
possessed
But
on
see
for
by
also
was
train
Harmony
him
service.
train
Expedi-
wagon
compelled
substantial
this
American
a
territory,
military
wagon
Mitchell
was
War
into
Colonel
wagon
Colonel
jury
placed
where
the
(1850);
(1866).
retreated
sued
the
of
during
his
it was
justify
to
revised
some
used
Harmony
of
where
not
power
existing
Congress
and
No.
power
of
progressing
troops
American
Mexicans.
parte
to
v. R l_ssell, 13 Wall.
287 U. S. 378, 400-
is subordinate
and
military
when
whereupon
the
the
courts
was
After
; Ex
716
military
Kinsella,
by
Milligan,
return,
with
1916,
Force
goods.
to
trial
Harmony
tionary
v.
with
such
29,
115 (1851)
Court
Chief
his
concurrence
Madscn
for
615
did
this
is subject
603,
Constitution
in
use
the
dealing
deprived
August
_*
The
cannot
with
Compare
action
9 How.
supra,
power
Commander
he
except
1952,
war
2 .Tucker,
"The
and
28,
13 How.
property,
also
his
2 (1866);
United
States
Sterling
v. Constantin,
President's
plaintiff's
then
v. Page,
v. Harmony,
401 (1932).
In Mitchell
not
even
Flemitl9
gan, 4 Wall.
623 (1871);
the
and
to
of
tried
remain
Subsequently
captured
damages,
Court.
App. 1131
by
the
and
the
55
limitation
Commander
on tile exercise
in Chief:
"There
are, without
property
may
to prevent
public
enemy;
ctmrged
with
property
into
tile
doubt,
lawfully
stroyed
use
of
occasions
be taken
it from
and
also
where
cases
we are
the
or the
will
not
"Our
clearly
danger
urgent
admit
duty
private
insure
ilapress
or take
of the
officer,
private
it for
public
and
service,
and
under
that
stringent
over
emphasized
in
where
public
United
this
danger,
mental
processes
the Court said:
ever,
beyond
malting
impossible,
"Extraordinary
and
all
the
civilian
must
unforeseen
doubt,
in cases
by
a public
at 134-135.)
of
property
v. Russell,
military
was
13
Wall.
it apparent
recourse
the
may
deem
it
it very clear
exercise
nmde
of the
owner
(13 How.
for
again
as
circumstances
against
and
States
Court
action
the
officer
we think
it."
such
ente,'prise
not permit
activity
fro,n
of war.
permits
of any
requirement
civilian
the
impending;
in providing
_ * *
wlmt
be taken
officer in a ti,ne
whether
the law
success
where
too late
calls for
is to determine
the
in all of these
the .public
would
be
the occasion
may
that
be immediate
enemy
_hich
the commanding
advisable
to undertake.
And
treme
military
for
of delay,
property
military
here is,
(1871)
of opinion,
nmst
necessity
civil authority
means wliicli
power
private
of or de-
may
serviee
as
* * _
"But
This
in which
duty,
public
power
possession
falling
a particular
the
Presidential
re623
that
ex-
to normal
govern-
be established.
There
occasions
arise,
of extreme
how-
necessity
App. 1132
56
in time
of war
or of immediate
danger,
in which
into
public
the
private
and
impending
property
service_
or may
may
public
be impressed
be seized
and
appro-
priated
to the public use, or may even be destroyed
_dthout the consent
of tl_e owner.*
* * Where
such an
extraordinary
and
unforeseen
public service
in time
that the power
of the
emergency
of war no
government
occurs
in the
doubt is entertained
is ample to supply
must
the
treme
tlm
emergency
and
delay
be immediate,
in the
imperative,
or a resort
the
must
exercise
or impending
gency,
as was
right,
shown
and
the
strictly
military
within
the
theatre
I-Iow.
115
(1851);
taining
power
the
of
rebellion,
and
of
as
war.
kind
a great
that
of
of supply,
and
re-
in respect
appropriated,
do arise
in time
magistrate,
the
be ex-
admit
imperatively
power
danger,
that
emergency
taking
can
courts
the
neutral
Commander
is designed
See
E:v flarte
proper
by military
commanders
during
a war
(United.
227 (1887))
of the
the
in character,
of the
by
extreme
it is clear
before
as
must
gives
must
be
be
justified."
at 627-628.)
Moreover,
Indicative
by
source
such
impending,
not
so finpressed,
public
said
to exist
(13 Wall.
other
Exigencies
of war
the
as will
be
property
or destroyed.
service
such
of that
to the particular
and
public
and
to any
circumstances
quire
imminent,
Milligan,
scope
of
Mitchell
of
such
in
Chief,
for
exercise
being
only
v. Harmony,
4 Wall.
the
power
action
as
13
2 (1866).
is the
sus-
destruction,
seizure,
vessels
when
confronted
running
with
blockade
armed
(Prize
App. 1133
57
Cases,
2 Black
of tile
steel
Umted
635
industry
States
what
(1862).*
situated
and
proportion
Ttle
seized
or
nationwide
throughout
properties
the
indiscriminately
type
of products
continental
regardless
were
designed
military
use, certainly
cannot
be characterized
within a theatre
of military
operations.
**
Although
justifies
the Presidential
the
stringent
taking
ference
private
power,
the
any
property
taking
Congressional
for
"The
ized,
some
United
Significant
were
that
also
under
armed
force
to
specifically
_
Ill.
Cf.
reversed
Labor
express
8tares
Commander
in
Disputes
that
Act_
clearly
Quirin,
members
317
of
U.
of
an
of
S.
by
of
Ward
Chief
since
seizure
F.
2d
(trial
engaged
to
officer
author-
to do so by
Government."
See,
the
armed
in
authorizing
had
also,
rebellion,
Chief
him
passed
but
to
use
legislation
blockade.
_. Co..
not
plants
(7th
of
the
an
being
Commander
Congress
Ward
was
as
statute
plants
369
(1942)
army
addition
that
the
is recognized
that,
may
be considered
fol'ei_,_
Taking
legislature;
without
only
early
and
under
to take property
by
Congressional
authori-
in
not
Montgomery
the
150
U. S. 69t} (1945).
It
tinental
United
States
l'arte
v.
domain.
of the
use,
Cases,
acting
declaration
seizure
ground
Prize
was
insurrection,
the
(holding
on
the
mili-
be made
necessary
implication,
is not the act of the
authority
suppress
U._lited
as
in
it does
President's
property
public
the
When, as
for inter-
Lincoln
ratifying
1945)
power
faetnrs
eminent
private
for
States,
President
the
present,
must
is a power
of
States
the
department
be based on
expressly
or by
act of Congress,
Hooev.
of
use
taking
of the United
under
of property
power
public
right
of the executive
eminent
domain
must
zation.
when
the function
of eminent
domain.
situation,
there is no foundation
with
property
are
being
in Chief
of property
for
as
as Commander
destruction
requirements
not encompass
in the present
tary
or
power
of
outside
justified
Cir.
by
F.
the
under
1945),
under
,:erta.in
within
the
in acts
58
justified
military
of
war
Supp.
408
under
'ttheatre
section
dismissed
(N.
of
3 of
as
war"),
the
War
moot.
326
circumstances,
theatre
of war.
tribmad
on United
D.
:President's
of
States
soil).
App. 1134
58
United
States
v. North
Ame,rican
748
U. S. 700,
(1919);
709
(1923);
Chappell
Transportation
; United
Rindge
Bragg
v.
States
v. Rauers,
70
v. Weaver,
U_dted
Tradi_tg
States,
251 U.
160
U.
that
upon
262
S. 57, 58
S.
499,
510
(1896).*
Moreover,
although
it is settled
held
under
the
has
no
that
this
power
enemy
The
very
to those
yet
which
was
within
nature
in
principle
within
the
329
122
F.
**
Y.
2d
To
order
that
on]y
the
such
Court
seizures
States,
said:
the power
of confiscat-
legislature,
its
and
will
our territory
by or
Executive
v. United
this
declared
of the
Chief
that
the
1872),
"Under
enemy
so
733
S.
eminent
long
by the
of
that
the
to confiscate
at the declara-
(4th
in
the
Cir.
effect
which
it was
and
may
cert.
States
denied,
which
only
e.g,
T.
citing
the
due
Brown
United
to
an
U.
4 Fed.
v.
S.
6S3
Cas.
United
States,
the
enemy
is in
to
recent
years
the "taking"
U_ited
!7. A.
can-
pursuant
that
in
whether
Seej
tel.
as
restricted
danger
exercised
ex
324
v. Butler,
held,
of
be
power
be
v.
v. Threl_eld,
72 F. 2d 464
(10th
; U_ited
States
v. West
Virginia
Britton
debts
use
established
limited
to
authority.
United
1941),
see
constituti.n
property
domain
StTtes
(1934)
its
public
and
thoroughly
courts
has
been
(1946);
military
that
congressional
230
; United
U. S. 620
same
President's
requires
of immediate
scope
U.
U. S. 5411 (1946)
cert.
denied,
293
N.
not
instances
Carmack,
or
Brown
is in the
has
of Congress
is
principal
inquiry
was
that
of war."**
Commander
The
be exercised
make
to the Court,
the break-
and
in which
property
property
tion
to
(1S14)
"It appears
legislature
can
legislation.
110, 129
ing
power
of Congress,
Congressional
SCranch
act
the
property
found
and confiscation,
direction
inherent
without
law
_tates
Welch,
v.
327
Cir. 1934),
Power
Co.,
(t941).
177,
IS0
(C.
C. S. D.
States:
power
congress
of
confiscating
alone."
App. 1135
59
not be handled
States
by normal
v. McF_l.rla_nd,
gray,ted,
governmental
]5
action.
F. 2d 823
(4tb
cert.
Cir.
[the
within
President's
narrow
In
the
bounds."
case
remaining
power
at
from
as
there
World
War
is no
II.
longer
The
Treaty
Senate
gave
h{arch
ratified
by the President
iting
such
28.
took effect
ratification
In fact
(R.
expressly
Chief]
the
and
Court
disclaimed
any
15th,
of
State
in their
on oral
idea
seizure
on any claim of a technical
from World
War II.
on
act of depos-
both
with
consent
on April
Department
counsel
of war
of Peace
its advice
the ministerial
with
in the District
371)
after
Mr. Sawyer's
orandum
in
a state
the
April
as to
of this
(15 F. 2d at 826.)
bar
to which
formally
cert.
275 U. S. 485
standard
exercise
Commander
Japan,
and
United
1926),
revoked,
(1927),
the Court emphasized
the salutary
"how careful
the courts are to restrict
the
power
In
on
mem-
argument
of justifying
state
of war
the
remaining
The preamble
clauses
of Executive
Order
No. 10340
refer to the hostilities
in I_.orea and "our national
defense
and
the defense
sion"
tiffs
of those
(I_. 7).
have
should
no argument
take
steps
fact
remains
ment
There
joined
with
be no need
with
the
necessary
to resist
that
the Constitution
do not
ent situation,
in Clfief.
In
January,
State
of the
visualize
under
1951,
Union*
this
us in resisting
fact
and
problem
1, 82nd
met,
placed
major
emphasis
beyond
Cong.,
1st
argument
in the
Sess.
pres-
Commander
on
on the
a strong
continued
that
must
of govern-
in his message
President,
as
plain-
inescapable
form
the
It is clear
No.
n . The
our
power
to two years.
Doc.
nation
being
It.
that
our
the President's
of aggression
defense.
The
H.
to say
that
aggressio
aggres-
the
the
threat
national
for close
present
(1951).
App. 1136
6O
controversy
does
emergency.
The affidavits
not
present
submitted
situation
in opposition
of
to the
themselves
controversy
no stretch
to involve
of the imagination,
imminent
threat
of
be said
military
disaster
the exercise
of presidential
power
Those affidavits
clearly
reveal that
a problem
of more
of securing
production
ties,
Atomic
and
for
and
continuing
And
Congress
]ms
in this
desirable.
As
disputes
aspects
of our
the
to the
supply
of vital
effort,
is necessarily
stress--has
consideration,
existence
months
sudden
as long
these
for
Commander
seizure
and
ago
contimfing
periods
of years,
of the
military
from
one
on a completely
authority
as provided
and
other
this
ques-
in any
no
power
is based
"war
of
and
period
received
exten-
have
a minimum
present
power
The
relation
that
which
of that
by the
to
was
as 19'47.
version
Congress
seen
of the
in Chief.
Any contention
other
action
can be based
delineated
the
us, and
military
and
reluctance
materials
problems,
ranging
to a number
exercise
udth
pro-
authority
of
a continuing
been
facili-
is a broad
or
we have
the
of Congress.
particular
defense
of national
Patently,
hesitation
question
for
transport
province
basic
tion-which
sive
no
problem
construction
expansion
the
whenever
The
other
industry
shown
area
for
and
within
justifies
equipment,
Conmfission
petroleum
the sudden
which
standing.
military
vehicles
Energy
question
legislate
labor
for
the most
can, b)"
as Commander
in Chief.
what is involved
here is
two years'
steel
of civilian
for
grams
than
necessary
sudden
applications
for injunctive
relief
(R. 27-62) are
eloquent
testimony
that the present
and
been
in
of several
basis
for
any
President
as
per-
Constitution
courts.
powers"
of
the
President,
the
United
not
States
those
of
are
the
those
President
App. 1137
of
61
alone. It is for Congress,and not for tile President, "to
raise and support Armies", and for the President to direct
them. Under the President's power as Commander in
Chief, as the courts have uniformly held, property can be
seizedor destroyed only in the course of battle in order
that our arms may prevail. This is a far cry from a contention that the power extendsin any way to a continuing
domesticprobleminvolving a major aspectof our economy.
The
present
controversy
does
not present
in a campaign
import
must
which
be--and
has
a problem
of broad
been--dealt
arising
legislative
with
by Con-
gress.
Constitutional
guarantees
President,
after
ignoring
gress
after
failing
an,]
to take
other
action
then
claim
zure
of an entire
Above
the
would
be meaningless
the procedures
to request
wlfich
existence
he might
of an
if
provided
by Con-
Congress
for
deem
desirable,
emergency
the
authority
justifying
could
sei-
industry.
all, there
can be found
no basis
in the Executive's
military
power for any action by Mr. Sawyer
to the terms
and conditions
o employment
with respect
of plaintiffs'
employees.
of power
defendant's
can be no
in
Chief
announced
increases
employment,
funds
Entirely
aside
from
the
seizure
of plaintiffs'
basis in the President's
for
placing
in
absence
properties,
power
effect,
in
for
there
clearly
as Conmmnder
accordance
with
the
and
repeated
threats
of Mr. Sawyer,
wage
and other
changes
in terms
and conditions
of
or for the forcible
to carry
out
those
appropriation
of plaintiffs'
changes.
App. 1138
62
E. The
Seizure
gregate
tive
Cannot
be Justified
of Powers"
Action
or by Isolated
Which
Were
At tim argument
power
that
Court:
was
to deal
Well,
and
adequate
But
(R.
opinion),
Sa_wyer
this
in
the
an unreexisted
colloquy
crises
oc-
before
in
machinery
it.
that it?
it that if you
backed
nebulous
theory
President
and
by
power"
Court,
below
action
provision
of
this
which
the
and is indeed
somehow
filed
on behalf
his
petition
in the
specifically,
of
for
that
implication,
residuum
the
Con-
and
the
upon
the
of powers"
in the
of powers.
theory
boils
is not
authorized
Constitution
doom
or
inconsistent
achieves
of
Pine's
unchanged.
somewhere
proceeded
"aggregate"
assertion
requirement
by necessary
now
of Judge
and
to the
certiorari
(the
remains
of a "broad
analysis,
claim
language
be found
proceeds
of his
for
the memorandum
must
essential
statute,
strong
District
executive
States,
petition
lip service
the argument
here
existing
with
argument
that
pay
power
argument
United
had
coun-
pp. 27-29).
governmental
appalling
the
fact
here,
President's
specific
Sawyer's
following
have
had
in their
basic
the
certiorari
In
Mr.
it is expediency
justified
their
Despite
that
we
Execu-
Challenged.
for expediency.
Isn't
Well, you might call
say
repudiate
fully
stitution,
the
to cope
counsel
expressly
Mr.
of Past
"Ag-
420).
Although
which
we
Pine
of an
we have
Instances
Legally
Judge
statement
this country,
Claim
In his concluding
curred :
"The
Never
before
sel argued
squarely
viewable
discretion
and an unlimited
by Any
an),
with
validity
to a claim
under
law
every
when
any
of
the
specific
all provL
App. 1139
63
sions
of the
Constitution
and
statutes
are
considered
to-
Executive
Order
and
being
without
au-
gether.
We
respectfully
action
purportedly
thority
under
submit
taken
ally
cannot
be validated
"broad
residuum"
Closely
gestion
that
justified
the
past
velt
Court
prior
under
reasons,
Order
to the
the
acted
passage
without
lawfulness
seized
of citations
presented
War
Labor
despite
case
complete
1.
referred
to United
(1951),
in the President
gency.
Stat.es
as confirming
This
trovertible
question
fact
of tbe
that
power
erty--was
not an issue
the
of Claims.
Court
below
(see
v. Pewee
the
during
of
Executive
in the case,
See Pewee
the
brief
the
actions
to con-
considera-
in the
legality
of the
extended
Memoran-
341 U. S. 114
power
a national
face
the
action.
of a constitutional
made
of
ever
demonstrates
property
was
Act
was
the
p. 57 of their
the existence
l_.oose-
a variety
Brief
however,
or support
to seize
assertion
advanced.
examples,
lack of precedent
Counsel
dum)
every
or
memorandum
sider
random
in
in the
seizures
authority
supporting
unduly
extend
this
individually
action
Disputes
For
of these
that,
sug-
Presidents
by President
as
constitutional
as President.
of none
is the
the memorandum
of the
powers
such
h'[r. Sawyer's
in which
example,
put to judicial
test.
It must also be emphasized
parade
and
his purported
of labels
contention
instances
For
provision,
of powers.
foregoing
apparently
statutory
application
Executive
authority.
District
or
or "aggregate"
to the
the
have
thereunder,
the
by various
legislative
the
constitutional
by
related
are
that
of the
emerincon-
taking--i.e.,
to seize
as specifically
the
the
prop-
stated
by
States,
App. 1140
64
88 F.
Supp.
parties
426,
430
in the Pewee
the legality
ment
(Ct.
case
of the seizure
before
Judge
Cls.
1950).
were
The
in complete
Pine
Mr.
Sawyer's
briefs
of bofll
agreement
that
so conceded
(p. 184).
2.
The
cases
cited
involving
seizures
of facilities
dur-
ing wartime
55 F. Supp.
justification
for inherent
actually
of the
out
involved
War
seizures
Labor
made
Disputes
power
under
Act,
to take
property,
the specific
authority
as Judge
Pine
3.
Counsel
now
that
principles
the
assert
if contemporaneously
to prevent
Purchase
pation
President
and
Jefferson
President
Proclamation.
on April
France.
This
(8 Star.
treaty
for
from
making
from
is
sheer
gone
the
issuing
208)
States
with
in the
same
brief
to make the
same
brief
Louisiana
the
at page
Emanci-
the
a treaty
Government
constitutional
No.
President
by the
168, October
"Ncither
party has challenged
the validity of these
the Executive
Order, or the Secretary's
general action
again
as
nonsense.
accepted
(Docket
No.
below,
so far
under
United
in
decision
have
the
certiorari
in the
would
Lincoln
Jefferson
30, 1803
That
(petition
embodied
applied,
And
pointed
(I_. 71).
745)
stated
executive
of
prin-
an option
Senate
and
Term
1950)
particular
actions,
under the Order."
89:
administrative
regulations
have not been chaiand their validity
is not iu dispute. " _ " In
is both procedurally
prop,.,r and substantively
assumption
on the merits,
in this Court,
_ " _ "
p. 36.
App. 1141
65
to the appropriation
The
conditions
Senate ratified
31, 1803
both
the Louisiana
later
they
of tile purchase
of the
the treaty
Houses
authorized
territory
pursuant
appropriated
(2 Stat.
245-265).
The
Emancipation
was
purely
to operate
federate
territory.
January
1, 1863
Proclamation
the
solely
against
enemy
1268),
and
West
Virgi_fia
Slaves
in those
tuck)',
Delaware,
areas,
the
Sherman's
his march
4.
of January
among
seizure
at
and
a time
actually
was
passed
for
in early
in the
theatre
in danger
a statute
specifically
'_ 2 Miller,
1861
gave
Treaties,
of
being
which
the
as
the
Federal
of
origbml
all of
portions
of
troops.
States
(Ken-
did not
receive
Amendment.
that
in enemy
Mr.
of
The
it was
"a fit
Sawyer's
Executive
during
counsel
action
"the
of the
and
bello
the
area
Civil
on
War
when
the
territory
lines between
Washington
again, was nmde flagrante
in question
of hostilities
and
isolated.
Congress
in effect
the President
etc.
.in Con-
excepted
by
recited
certiorari
Lincoln
telegraph
_q?his seizure,
that'
suppressing
said rebellion"
it was no dffferent
from
"precedents"
by President
railroads
Annapolis".
well
of property
petition
the
which
Thirteenth
1, 1863
destruction
to the sea.
In their
cite
by
Missouri),
and necessary
war measure
for
(12 Star. 1268).
Constitutionally,
1268)
Proclamation
1267,
property
occupied
and
ten days
payment
It recited
specifically
as
then
Maryland
freedom
Proclamation
Virginia
to occupy
for
Star.
hello.
Supplemental
Stat.
and
Houses.
; and
stuns
(12
Louisiana
legal
to the treaty
flagrante
The
(12
by both
President
necessary
measure,
Tennessee
their
the
Proclamation
a war
it w'as
price
option
were
duly
fulfilled.
The
oll October 20, 1803. * On October
of the United
ratified
control
States
the
this
capital
was
itself
subsequently
seizure
and
of all raih'oads
and
506.
App. 1142
66
telegraph
lines.
remain
in force
suppression
12 Star.
5.
of this
rebelhon."
provided
that
was "necessary
(Act
of Jan.
it was to
for the
334.)
Mr. Sawyer's
Presideq_t:
action
in
counsel
below,
citing
from
p. 190, finds
Roosevelt's
Corwin's
The
support
for his
"stewardship
theory"
seizure
as exemplified
of coal mines
by his consideration
of the
during
a strike
to prevent
possible
a coal
shortage.
Corwin
Counsel
neglected
to point
out, however,
in the very next paragraph
of his study had
that
this
to add :
"One
fact
Attorney
'T.R.'
General
omits
to mention,
Knox
advised
and
him that
that
is that
his 'intended'
executive
support
acts
for sustaining
past
and threatened
observed
:
"Acts
based
ability
ing
The
(p. 191).
of doubtful
validity
the Executive
actions.
on this
of excuse
pretend
and are,
of Justice"
law
or
can
Order
As
recent
of necessity
and
of subsequent
commentator
asslm_ed
ratification
of constitutional
of the President,
no
and defendant's
to be supported
by constitutional
of course, of no value as precedents
the existence
War Powers
furnish
probdo not
authority
establish-
power."
[1943] Wis.
Whyte,
L. Rev.
205, 211-212.
There
foreign
could
to the
can through
present
be no more
dangerous
Constitution--than
some
legerdemain
principle--nor
a rule
serve
that
one more
past
as authority
illegality
to legalize
illegality.
App. 1143
67
Indeed,
if Executive
validity,
a nlost
During
the
Labor
construction
recent
coal
example
strike
Management
is to be accorded
is directly
of 1950
Relations
the
in our
President
Act;
and
any
favor.
invoked
on March
the
3, 1950,
he sent a message
to Congress
reciting
the steps
taken
mid
st_ecifically
reqzt, esting
Co_.gressio_lal
a,u,thorization
for
thc seizl_re
Mr.
and
of the
Sawyer's
has always
In
their
went
not
coal mi_les.*
counsel
now
had, an "inherent
melnorandum
so far
as to assert
or
Chief
situation,
for
existence'of
that
F. Mr. Sawyer's
this
limited
to effect
(p.
to
ask
has,
seizm:es.
60-A)
they
power"
Congress.
clearly
such "inherent
President
Pine
The
in an almost
seems
Action
the
"inherent
by
it necessary
seizure
any
Judge
Executive,
tllought
thorization
that
power"
before
he diminished
the present
clainl
could
fact
identical
that
recent
Congressional
inconsistent
au-
with
the
to
the
power".
Violates
Constitution.
In view of the complete
stitution
and laws of the
action,
it is clear
with
these
plaintiffs'
appears
"The
cna!
though
produce
believe
panied
trouble.
we
by
_rge
authorize
and
of
cure.
have
no
Rec.
sick
be
am
industry.
therefore,
Congress,
turn
its
to
attention
of
the
to
coal
It
effort
the men
seizure
by
that
Above
the
circumstances,
a_dhority
urge
with
it
1)eeltufla
be
accom-
employers.
oct
of due
concludes
present
seizure
But
to
take
interference
Temp-rary
under
the ConSaw'yer's
them
(1950).
recomlneading
alternative.
the
difficulties
2774-2775
and
constructive
the interest
of
Government
other
deprive
necessary
of their
people.
to
basic
is
may
and
rights
in the interest
the American
the
then
the
T
it
now
a positive
This
is in
is equally
interest
of
seizure
and
ill 90 Cong.
iudustl
Government,
I
the
property
_ The message
words:
cannot
that
lack of authority
lmder
United
States
for Mr.
all,
immediately
on
possession
of
and
operate
legislation
looking
toward
it
is
in
the
It
the
legislation
the
a
to
mines,
solution
industry.".
App. 1144
68
process
it were
in violation
of the Fifth Amendment.
to be assumed
that the Executive
could
circumstances
authorize
despite
the
other action
utter
lack
necessarily
The
argument
the guaranty
be deprived
seizure
of
property
U.
of Mr. Sawyer
Executive
said,
and
S. 356,
316
which
lie
the
(1926).
Yick
Wo
as
this
principles
of
which,
base
of all
our
v. Louisiana
hloreover,
the
provision
Unless
due
plainis com-
(Cf.
(1886)),
at
the
discretion,
"fundamental
Hebert
leaving
requirement
the
institutions".
S. 312,
fiat,
369-370
embraces
justice
political
that
ignores
that no person
shall
process
of law. The
of Mr. Sawyer's
with
118 U.
has
and
by
challenged,
basis,
the seizure
and
the due process
clause.
on behalf
at the mercy
v. Hopkins.s,
liberty
of statutory
contravene
advanced
incompatible
Court
tiffs literally
pletely
action
But even if
under some
civil
Co.,
process
272
clause
governmental
v. United
States,
authority
is uncon324 U. S. 229, 241
(1945).
Furthermore,
less
drastic
there
means
are
for
readily
dealing
available
with
the
other
problem
and
far
posed
by
the controversy
between
the plaintiffs
and the Union-means
which carefully
safeguard
the rights
of both sides
to the
controversy,
encourage
maximum
the processes
of collective
mate and extreme
action,
bargaining,
in the event
after
the
deliberate
the
Executive
that
these
considered
and
methods
and
the
for
Legislative
dealing
signed
to protect
of all
parties--and
rights
stances
participation
Branch.
with
all interests--those
to minimize
possible
to
the
of both
It is apparent
problem
of the nation
the
resort
and permit
the ultiof an impasse,
only
disruption
are
de-
and those
of private
in the particular
circumWith these alternative
App. 1145
69
means
readily
drastic
and
violates
available,
inherently
the
Fifth
the choice
arbitrary
course
Amendment.
Brothers
G. Denial
of the Sweeping
of the sweep
claimed
for Mr.
sterile
construction
tution
government
nmnds
that
the
our
executive
District
Cotlrt
The
easily
they
the
test
idea
action
tainty
which
of meeting
here
procedures
stress
have
and
of emergency
and
and
to deal
should
crisis."
real
lull
us,
of
the
can
emergency
adequate
(R.
executive
power,
emergencies
simplicity
as it has
today
to meet
75)
other
and
cer-
nations,*
Constitution
in Germany
provided
that
"take any measures
necessary
to restore
be recog-
of Congress:
or ima&dned
a deceptive
Article
48 of the late Weimar
bl an emergency
the President
could
are
that
Constitution
of an
and
de-
from
only branch
matter.
As
the role
the
of
varying
must
unreviewable
with
has
not
out
in a
Gov-
charter
follow
challenged
strains
past,
expedient,
is here
within
the
the Consti-
the
not
under
in the
available
which
operative
it does
in pointing
of a strong
as deemed
continuously
but
stated,
the
as
power
The executive
is not the
which is concerned
in the
v. Pal_ner
actions
would
not result
Constitution
or leave the
is capable
society;
nized as valid.
the Government
; Weaver
Co. v.
to Meet an Emergency.
of executive
and
which
of
in this case
Dea_z. Milk
to deal
with emergencies
Constitution.
It is true that
is a dynamic
of the
Powerless
Sawyer's
of the
ernment
powerless
framework
of the
(1951)
Executive
Executive
selected
Compare
Madiso_b
Negation
by the
follouqng
the
for his dicta-
App. 1146
7O
into forgetting
that
it is alien
of a government
of laws
fact that the Constitution
powers,
those
being
and
consisting
reasonably
reserved
Tenth
and not
created
of those
Bldg.
Cf.
Justice
Hughes
"Emergency
not
ish
The
of grave
said
States
and
they
are
was
thus
granted
were
imposed
will be,
Its
and
questions
"While
subject
power
348.
braces
particular
the
the
not
Fed-
power
of
of emergency
What
were
power
thus
been,
and
examination
create
occasion
never
a reason
enjoyed.'
constitutional
of an emergency
light
always
imal-
under
may
lived,
for
Wilson
particular
exercise
conditions.
Thus,
the
not
emer-
exercise
call
into
nevertheless
the exertion
v. New,
question
is whether
power,
for
an emergency
has
afford
already
The
to the
of the
lhnitations
does
furnish
which
may
or
system.
'Although
a power
granted
emergency.
of close
in a period
of power
have
(1934)
or dimin-
power
in the
by
what
emergency
may
in Home
Emergency
adopted
limitations
which
the
Court
power.
upon
195 U. S.
306 IT. S.
or remove
grants
its
altered
otlr constitutional
power.
and
v. Maryla_d,
this
was
determined
not
ways
gency
create
power
and
tbe
gency
granted
emergency.
are
for
Constitution
Government
posed
McCulloch
granted
restrictions
reserved.
eral
does
increase
lhe
expressly
Dorr v. United
States,
v. N. 17. exrcl.
O'Kccfe,
_ L. Ass_7.. v. Blaisdell,
does
concept
powers
Amendments.
Chief
fundamental
to be implied
therefrom,
all other powers
to the people or to the States by the Ninth
Wheat.
316, 420 (1819);
138, 140 (1904) ; Graves
466, _:77 (1939).
As
to our
power
of
the
it
war
emerof a living
243 U. S. 332,
presented
the
of
life
in the light
possessed
in
em-
response
power
of
App. 1147
to
the
71
Federal
Government
of war,
It
is not created
but it is a power
is a power
permits
the
people
war
harnessing
in a supreme
nation.
given
to wage
But
even
"5
See
eel,
33
Co.,
251
Ex
Wall.
U.
Parte
623,
the
of the
war
S.
146,
155;
that
entire
power
4: Wall.
Hamilton
not
United
States
v.
thus
it
of the
the
remove
con-
essential
2, 120-127;
Kentucky
emergency.
and
to preserve
does
v.
emergency
energies
effort
safeguarding
Milligan,
627;
to meet
successfully,
cooperative
stitutional
limitations
ties2 * * *"
by the
United
States
Distilleries
_.
Grocery
Co.,
Cohen
liber-
v. Rue-
Warehouse
255
U.
8.
81_ 88."
111 accordance
with the views
has not hesitated
on various
sufficiency
of circumstances
executive
action
action
was
was
supported
thus expressed,
this Court
occasions
to consider
the
on the
assertedly
basis
taken,
by statute.
See,
of which
even
drastic
where
that
e.g., Hirabayashi
v.
U,tl.ited States,
320 U. S. 81, 91-95, 101-102
(1943);
Parte
Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 24-25, 29 (1942).
See also
Parte
Milligan,
4 Wall.
2, 120-122,
124-127
(1866);
Ex
Ex
cf.
Mitchell
cordingly
Acad-
v. Harmony,
13
there
is clearly
vanced
in the memorandum
Court,
at
"emergency"
What
is
that
stoppage
pages
19-22
for
and
is not subject
the emergency
of steel
59,
t]mt
the
in the District
nature
of
to judicial
review.
which
is here
claimed?
production,
as the
result
any
It
is
of a labor
dispute,
would be catastrophic
to the civilian
economy
the military
needs of the nation.
No one denies that
a stoppage,
if continued
for
have
disastrous
consequences.
the
substantial
time,
That
in substance
and
such
would
is all
the affidavits
in opposition
in those affidavits
is there
App. 1148
72
any intimation that the challengedseizureis the only wa),,
or eventhat it is the way, in which to avoid the stoppage
of steel production. The Executive
Order
states
merely
that
it is necessary
properties
of steel.
of plaintiffs
Moreover_
denly,
duction
the
had
gency
are
of
"A
the
(R.
kinds;
Similarly,
in
of
if
the
"The
proand
the contracts
expired
the
of
more
steel
to
production
forms
of
extent
could
that
be
the
the
any
will
the
has
Labor
affidavit
it
prolonged
result
essential
continue,
of
would
the
of
period
and
weaken
sa/_ety
the
of
immediately
weapons
imperil
and
is not
the
of
in
munitions
our
Defense
defense
fghting
Production
of
the
the
it
meet
be
disruptive
qualification
productive
to
the
states
presently
not
steel
National
(R.
36)
available
and
and
the
elements
effects
that
requirements
of
Production
particular
by
the particular
steel
said
of
operating
a particular
alloys
work
of the stoppage
they
would
be
the
Authority
:
to indicate
the
interrupted
capacity
the
of
defense."
products
would
to
to
fabrication
national
eves
steel
which
used
emer-
Congress
from
for
Administrator
the
but
of
The statements
as
below
arc subject
claimed
which
industry
of
Administrator
detailed
" * _ * Information
and
steel
would
production
the
of
to
the
of the
34):
is necessary
affidavit
mills
sud-
statements
production
of
(.R.
continued
thereof
the
not
permitted
affidavit
states
shapes
arise
tools
following
all critical
areas
and
that
of the Nation."
Adnfinistration
somewhat
availability
a situation--namely
29 t 31)
stoppage
curtailment
effort
in
men and
The
of the
such
are
Defense
work
all
did
the
to continued
steel
between
plaintiffs
before
"The
cessation
of production
would
be catastrophic.
serious
of
even
side
with
examples
Secretary
threat
dispute
operate
continued
characteristics
along
to deal
" Typical
time
foregoing
laid
provided
the
emergency
The
labor
clear
of and
3i, 1951.
_.Vhen the
is
claimed
been
on December
possession
to assure
or over night.
posed by the
tile Union
the
to take
the
stoppage.
as set forth
alleviated
to
iron
and
steel
program."
App. 1149
73
Management
Relations
Act
of 1947,
of Section
18 of the Universal
vice
and
Act,
Section
201
the
of
gency
Defense
are
does
not
Military
requisitioning
the
amended--and
tested
create
be only
one answerithat
without
warrant
Production
power,
we
Any
ernment
is
powerless
production
As
which
stated
various
And,
means
the
by
those
be said
We
that
do
alternatives
control
Executive
the
argue
discretion
is
Court
has the
is constitutional.
that
dealing
never
duty
1950,
that
that
there
are
conclusion
with
from
the
the
can
wholly
would
have
ease
the
Gov-
threat
to
steel
labor
been
dealing
not
when
dispute.
provided
with
prove
sys-
that
current
has
for
should
mean
as
emer-
with
the
matter.
adequate--which
they
have
not
even
can legislate
appropriately
and spethe nation
from threatened
disaster.
As
stated
(I. 175), there is no reason
to
Congress
not
for
of
actions
not
Executive
to be the
been triediCongress
cifically
to protect
the District
Court
believe
deal
Congress
means
by
to
arises
above,
if
cannot
of course
Ser-
Act
submit
other
and
conferred
principle
h'fr. Sawyer's
of law.
conclusion
the
provisions
Training
authority
against
the seizure
with
involved
free
to
and
the
would
when
fail
the
Executive
a situation
in
resort
power
the
that
to
to
in that
choice.
an
has
courts
regard.
a choice
may
We
do
unconstitutional
determine
whether
of
review
say,
constitutional
the
wisdom
however,
procedure,
the
procedure
that
or
the
and
this
taken
App. 1150
74
POINT
The
seizure
causing
for
and
which
A.
and
The
will
they
Sawyer's
cause
have
seizure
further
Mr.
is
the
plaintiffs
injury
of the
at once caused
a most
plaintiffs'
executive
displaced
from
office--but
subject
to Mr. Sawyer's
ble for
plaintiffs
normal
way.
were
There
as demanding
upon
tives,
as dependent
upon
plans
for
the morrow.
in an ambiguous
of directors
in a quandary.
dustry.*
ness
Any present
any
at any
time.
accordance
that
assumptions
will be upset
themselves
* See Department
position
and
decisions
is revealed
Commerce
position
Order
of "busi-
day
to day
always
to
they
in
against
through,
or that
are
based
of Mr. Sawyer.
in which
situation
140,
as
in-
of the business
from
on which
by the
boards
of lfis power
phase
edict
of
set up a
Mr. Sawyer
be carried
events
with
so organized
tile entire
steel
hedged
supervening
as
the managers
the several
of the impossible
of
from
in a
of execu-
has already
machinery,
and control
cannot
impossi-
as complex
day's
leaves
decisions,
of future
by some
An example
find
they
each
not
properties
properties
by a reservation
tentative
to plain-
judgment
Management
with
the possibility
the
he may
their
of
were
became
businesses
seizure
assurance
is qualified
orders
injury
those
Mr. Sawyer
governmental
to coordinate
as usual"
issue
to run
meshing
The
and
business
personnel
the managerial
the plants
comprehensive
to enable him
serious
at once
steel,
plaintiffs
and
told to run
orders--it
to continue
the
properties
tiffs.
own
injury
threatened.
the plaintiffs
While
are
at law.
to
is immediately
seizure
action
irreparable
remedy
serious
injury
l_[r. Sawyer's
threatened
no adequate
causing
grave
lII
quoted
plaintiffs
of the
in
Stephens
United
atfidavit
(R. 100-101).
App. 1151
75
States
Steel
Fairless
Company,
Works,
sions
affecting
every
day.
less
make,
is a far
more
many
types
this
Court's
of equity.
prevailing
126, 141).
this
will alter
The
and
Unioncame
terms
and
plaintiffs'
had
ordered
otherwise,
to an agreement
than
which
have
save
for
under
the
3 of Executive
the
Order
conditions
plants
such
the
(sl_pra.,
of
(R.
announced,
that
unless
to
may
injury
by l_[r. Sawyer
the
at once,
they
in prospect,
himself
taken
moment
on title,
President
Court
be taken,
in
Deci-
and managers
grievous
of paragraph
(R. 8) which
fore
an order
authority
employment
and
The
be made
decision
as clouds
is immediately
protection,
purported
10340
immediate
there
must
at any
of any
courts
case,
exposed
revocation
plant,
(R. 97-98).
the owners
and
such
steel
operations
leaves
of damage,
moved
any
new
completed
and
which
or
In
half
of uncertainty
revision
always
than
a huge
investment
A seizure
in a morass
forced
with
103,
just
action
be-
would
plaintiffs
and
the
p. 14).
of dollars
to be paid
of additional
to hundreds
of thousands
Mr.
would
(vhre
Sawyer
removed,
of no great
mendations
only
of the
in part.
would
the
plaintiffs
present
cannot
whether
Wage
In an),
case
costs
funds
plaintiffs
of the
of employees.*
do if the
significance
employment
Precisely
injunctive
tell
he would
Stabilization
impose
Board
and
serious
has stated
that
there
what
protection
(R. 105).
injury,
an-
But
it is
injury,
would
or
there
certainly
be 'wage increases
(R. 103);
and the entire
focus of Mr.
Sa_vyer and of those acting with him since the seizure
has
been
upon
_ See
the grant
footnotej
p.
of concessions
to the Union.
7, supra.
App. 1152
76
Moreover
and
the Wage
it would
Stabihzation
be open
shop
(R.
affect
the plaintiffs'
94, 104,
to Mr.
125)
which
labor
Board
Sawyer
not
costs
recommended--
to impose--the
only
would
but would
union
drastically
alter
the pattern
of employer-employee
relations
in a manner
which could
never be undone.
In American
Federatioq_
of Labor v. Watson,
impairment
of
mental
outlawry
ble injury
Finally,
tion
tions
tiffs
of that
decision
most
the
and
100 issues
comprehensive
160).
Extensive
Stabilization
are
as were
Board,
issues
and
bargaining
the
did
plainof a
agreement.
parties
(R. 103,
of the Wage
not
of labor
be resolved
the plain-
between
the
the formulation
between
they
principle
condi-
the Union.
the recommendations
even
It is a basic
outstanding
collective
in dispute
consumma-
terms
damage
with
is a far reaching
controversy
the Union in connection
with
Over
of equity.
here.
gravely
position
that
by governan irrepara-
importance,
to alter
would
bargaining
new
issues.
is applicable
threat
of employ_nent
There
tiffs and
asserted
of a court
not of least
Sawyer's
in their
Court
the interposition
but certainly
of Mr.
this
collective
labor
relationships
of the closed shop is in itself
warranting
The principle
(1946),
deal
with
all
the
that
all
161).
In
negotiations
together
(R. 104,
the present
case outstanding
unresolved
issues of vital concern to management
include
those having
a direct
effect
upon
the efficiency
Whatever
may
of operation
be the
(1_. 103-104,
order
which
now prepared
to issue--whether
bilization
Board
recommendations,
103,
142)--the
floor
for the
with
the plaintiffs.
dantly
clear
nection
with
result
Union
to this
will
be to create
Union
Court
the petitions
has
in its
for
160).
Sa_wer
is even
in its continued
The
Mr.
and
a new
future
already
amicus
certiorari.
made
brief
There,
and
higher
negotiations
that
filed
abunin con-
at pp. 5-6,
App. 1153
77
the
Union
[the
said
that,
plaintiffs']
will again
duty
matter,
to negotiate
always
of a
government
Board,
tice
upon
worldng
their
the War
with
conditions,
for
that
the
period
short
and
the
effect
period."
Board,
the
beyond
the
agency
as
the
affidavit
Krug-Lewis
of their
be argued
that,
And
may
once
the
it a pracpassing
"the
last
likeli-
beyond
of emplo_nent
without
National
Mills,
Inc.,
Insura_ce
2d 307,
(1951)
to the
return
that
the
prior
Co. v. Natio_d
309
; Tower
(5th
Labor
Cir.
1951),
Hosiery
Mills,
Mr.
to plaintiffs
(1949)
Sawyer's
cert.
(R.
in 1946 under
the
to assume
the so-
is ended,
existed
Consequently,
injurious
wlfich
this
shows
be recognized
first exhausting
the collective
Labor
Relatio_z_
Board
v.
be
Labor
it may
steel
com-
panies
would not have the right under
the National
Relations
Act unilaterally
to restore
the terms
and
tions
in
may
of the War
as a condition
seizure
Labor
a change
McMath
mines seized
were required
it must
period
operation
of R. E.
Agreement
properties.
the
recognized
changes
con-
War
when
for
Moreover,
and
Act, made
of a plant
Board
are
of the par-
terms
of governmental
of the
conditions
positions
Disputes
of a government
it
is why
owners
and
concern-
back
consequences
Labor
the
hood
and
to turn
That
right
conditions."
respective
seizure.
proposals
the
to their
the Union
and working
the
restored
(]overnment-inlposed
have
under
with
from
to consult
are
will have
be impossible
now are.
ditions
they
to bargain
wages
it would
as they
the mills
possession
be their
prescribed,
"when
to
the
Labor
condiseizure
bargaining
process.
Cro_pton-Higlda,nd
; American
Relations
National
Board,
granted,
187 F.
342 U. S. 809
action
would
dollars
be
and
App. 1154
7S
cents
damage
consequent
the weakening
with
respect
pute
with
of the
to all
the
portance-in
upon
plaintiffs'
the
wages
bargaining
unresolved
Union
the
increased
and--of
weakening
position
issues
equal
of
in the
or
the
but also
even
in
today
labor
dis-
greater
im-
plaintiffs'
bargaining
position
at all times in the future
with respect
to any and
all issues
which will be faced
at the end of the seizure
period
and
thereafter.
A_terican
Federation
of Labor
v.
Co. v. Court
B.
recovered--
Money
damages---assuming
would
be wholly
A simple
cloud
relief
because
Wickli[fe
on title
no
has
other
v. Owings,
cific v. United
of the
plaintiffs,
least
any
The
Osborne
seizure
with
its
problems
are
as a cloud
at law
would
_ Co_npany
; cf. Tr,tt_x
_uttional
News
236-237
(1918)
(1923)
; Pierce
(1925)
; see also
Even
the
suit
damages
would
; Shaffer
host
Service
; Land
Tax
252 U. S.
and
business
and
appeal
In these
legal
position
to equity
Pacific
at
circumstances,
be inadequate.
Railway
v. Dollar,
See
ComFa_y,
v. Associated
; Terrace
v. Carter,
necessarily
Pa-
; Ohio
the ambiguous
should
on title.
v. Raich,,
Press,
; Inter-
248 U. S. 215,
v. Thompson.
of Sisters,
v. Society
Bell v. Hood,
were
to sue
to be entertained,
be
; SoTtthern
properties
from
to grant
or adequate.
of uncertainties
v. Misso_ri
if plaintiffs
were
is complete
of the
left,
equity
arising
owners
as strongly
remedy
moved
47, 50 (1854)
(1920).
the
always
practical
be
17 How.
States,
37, 48
in which
could
remedy
Cases,
and
they
inadequate.
severe.
at law
the
The
for
damages,
problem
diversity
of
and
of proof
of
opinion
in
App. 1155
79
U_ited
States
suggests
v. Pewee
the
problem.
be necessary
would
have
there
have
Coal Company,
On one
or another,
to speculate
occurred
had
been
a strike
theory
it might
as to the course
of events
that
there been no seizure:
Would
of any
significant
duration?
Would
with
lead,
such
have
questions,
always
interposition.
can
U.
only
322
(1907);
827 (6th
269
Cir.
1943)
1, 11 (8th
(E.
D. 1)a. 1940)
707, 709 (E.
Moreover
of plaintiffs'
D. Pa.
No judgment
could
age,
furthermore,
long
as the
with
each
measure
shop,
other.
for
which
Compare
American
U. S. 582, 593-595
will have
one of the
and
round
which
Nor
within
abide
Union
there
cannot
impairment
yet
unresolved
of issues
with
be any
possible
purported
of Labor
v.
for
as
relationship
Sawyer's
; Virginia
dam-
degree
any
such
Mr.
the Union.
damage--a
in some
have
pos-
its consequences
of conditions
Federation
(1946)
here
settlement
for this
the
could
21
The
issues
in the
would
and
l F. ]_. D. 267,
of negotiation
the imposition
are
terms.
fix reparation
plaintiffs
of the damage
controversy,
Co., 172
position
of every
in the present
Wa.tcr
v. Gcist,
monetary
bargaining
297
1937).
part
into
in the settlement
; Froser
an adequate
206 U. S. 285,
Walla
v. Co nway,
which
Authority,
v. Eldred,
; L_wkenbacb
the greater
be translated
is not
Co. v. Ce_dral
1912)
to warrant
damages
Valley
v. Walla
; Texas
Cir.
for
a process
; Roof
to which
by equity
suit
Kessler
Wcdla
(1898)
F. Supp.
sibly
such
(1936);
spezlflation
thought
v. Ten,nessee
Walla
U. S. 1, 11-12
Fed.
by
'Ash.wa'nder
S. 288,
290
been
the
A prospective
be proved
remedy.
and
monetary
as the
union
powers.
Watson,
327
Fed-
App. 1156
8O
eration
No.
40, 300
U.
S. 515,
N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood
548, 568-569
C.
550-553
(1937);
of Railway
Clerks,
damages
are recoverable.
No adequate
money
damages,
of
covered
from Mr. Sawyer
personally,
course,
could be reeven for that portion
of the injuries
which might
be measured
individual
wealth
could not approach
the
in money.
His
amount
of dam-
Sawyer's
not.
The
(i)
counsel
United
under
for just
edy
(i)
281 U. S.
(1930).
would
Texas
the
against
has
States
suggested.
has
Federal
compensation
the
that
to be sued
Claims
in the Court
Act
damages
States,
It is plain
consented
Tort
money
United
and
of Claims.
as
they
for
(ii)
Mr.
would
damages
in a suit
Neither
rem-
is available.
The
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
is obviously
unavail-
able.
Mr. Sawyer's
counsel
suggested,
in the District
Court,
that a suit thereunder
would lie (R. 380) ; but this suggestion
has not been pursued
and
is hardly
in the petition
to be taken
seriously.
for certiorari
The
plain
in No. 745
words
of the
history,
exclude
any such suit.
181 F. 2d 816, 818-819
(8th Cir.
28 U. S. C. 1346-b
permits
action
against
the United
States
for
injury "caused by the negligent
or wrongful
act or omission of any employee
of the Government
while acting within the scope of his office or employment."
If the seizure was unlawful, as we contend_ _ir. Sawyer was not acting "within
the scope of his office or employment."
In any event 28 U. S. C. 2680-a
expressly
excludes
acts or omissions
regulation,
whether
from the scope of the Tort Claims Act claims based upon
of Government
employees
"in the execution
of a statute or
or not such statute
or regulation
be vahd".
App. 1157
81
1950).
See
Supp.
124
F. Supp.
also,
Old King
(S. D. Iowa
980
19491;
(S. D. Iowa
1949);
States,
95 F.
United
States,
95 F. Supp.
United
States,
93 F. Supp.
McCrary
1949).
(ii)
Court
Supp.
479
Co. v. United
It is equally
of Claims.
The
argument
assumes
that
counsel
(S.
D. Iowa
84 F.
Supp.
that
there
of such
was
so conceded
was unlawful,
Decisions
of this Court
"The
United
said:
constitutional
property
for
directed
ity
legislative
The
that
are
the
atteml,ts
have
an
use
Government.
States,
123
242-243
(2d
were
that
of
that
adequate
It
Pine
(R. 380).*
just
Cir.
1944)_
cert.
as
denied,
to
the
private
compensation
and
in
the
of
District
a suit
of
Court
in
U.
of Sa.nford
v. Comm'r,
308 U. S. 39_ 51
l_y. Co., 243 U. S. 281_ 289 (1917).
8.
7:12
are
the
(19391
; 8wilt
private
to
"concede"
Court
of
Claims
that
attorneys
for
defenses
available
(:19441.
not
indi-
the author-
taking
established
or concede
which
is
not against
without
way
323
Thus
taldng
just
is well
to waive
law_
com-
clear.
Munro
v. United
3tates_
303 U. S. 36, 41 (19381
U. S. 227_ 233
(18871 i Wallace
v. United
States,
t_OllCessiolls
action
against
The
by
necessarily
for which
proceeding
counsel
i_ the
(1910),
without
remedy
Cls.
h'[r. Sawyer's
proposition
enactment.
(Ct.
S. 322, 335-336
the government,
officers
v.
J. B.
Mr. Sawyer's
States
218 U.
not binding
on the Government.
United
States
do net have
power
.concessions
Estate
Valley
varinus
plaintiffs
to the
United
240_
against
or public
Judge
prohibition
public
vidual
of
make
Boyce
368
Indeed
before
Sta_tes,
v.
1950);
a remedy
as we insist,
Toledo
is no remedy
lawful.
89
v. United
19511;
866
88 F.
States,
ef. Lauterbach
838
obvious
v. United
D. Wash.
States,
seizure
expressly
If the seizure
(W.
in support
the
Jones
States,
; Finn
142 F.
Moreover,
binding
on
v.
2d
the
a court.
App. 1158
82
property
by an officer
use,
without
sary
implication,
not the
As
pointed
authorized
govermnent."
out
above,
the
v. North
that
the
appear
that
session
of the
either
also
La_tgford
v. United
Sawyer's
said
under
the Fifth
domain
United
States
counsel
to support
by
Amendment
Government
conferred
States,
upon
power
exercise
national
Again,
claimant
of the
in United
was
States
allowed
it mus{
taken
authorized
pos-
so to do,
upon
whom
to the District
"even
cases
them
right
(1879).
Court
in the absence
of the
to confer
to acquire
right
power
of express
to pursue
In Kohl
in question
upon
the grounds
the
of eminent
this Court
of eminent
v. Cau_by,
various
to involve
by the legislature.
(1875),
to compensation
he referred
officials
intention
of the Treasury
restated
be liable
" * * * a clear
and
91 U. S. 367, 374-5
the provisions
fested
Court
cited
The
this
or by the official
a claimant's
provision."
existing
power."
States,
States,
is not
in con-
in
physically
duly
v. Goltra,
v. United
only
is
Transportation
has
was
the
not
shall
who
by Congress
United
cases
exercise
officer
neces-
expressed
A_nerican
property
public
but is squarely
as
Govermnent
conferred
; Mitchell
statutory
the
directly
Congress
Mr.
Congress
for
or by
of Congress,
seizure
of Congress,
of
States
order
See
act
will
present
act
"In
(1941)
so by some
of the
the
States
expressly
act
In United
Trading
the rule
of the United
authorized,
to do
by any
flict with
legislation.
that
being
mani-
the Secretary
needed
by the'
domain.*
* *"
his remedy
v.
asserted
in the
Court
App. 1159
the
of
83
Claims for a taking authorized by tile Civil Aeronautics
Act. And in the recent case of Larso_ v. Domestic
and
Foreign
Court
Commerce
stated
compensable
337 U.
that
only because
terms
of valid
serts,
citing
is no
constituted
in a suit
U_ited
[the
for breach
if tl_e Administrator's
a_thority
co_dd
such
the
as-
218 U. S, 322:
action
* * * There
could
admittedly
has
a remedy,
in the
Court
of Claims.
of contract,
* _ O_ly
with
the opinion
taking.
respondent
this
were
administrator's]
an unconstitutional
the
in accordance
Indeed,
States,
that
(1949),
of the sovereign
were
authority.
claim
be since
S. 682, 695
the actions
they
statutory
Hooev.
"There
not
Corp.,
explicitly
action,
suit
be
was within
maintained."
his
(337
distinction
Court
private
hetween
is obvious.
property
these
Where
pursuant
cases
and
that
a Government
to statutory
now before
official
takes
the
prop-
authority,
of Mr. Sawyer
"does
in the District
not go to the
v. Kinc.aid,
essence
Court,
that
type
of the taking."
But
See
where
the
taking
itself
is utterly
devoid
of authority,
the very illegalit5 _ of which the plaintiffs
complain
also deprive
them of
an)' remedy
Amenchnent.
This
sition
clear
and
are
were
available
of equity
for just
repeatedly
in a legal
rights
For
in a stilt
asserted
system,
such
rule
as
closed
under
rule
ours,
unauthorized
to the
the Fifth
is a basic
in
of unfettered
otherwise--were
a wholly
thereby
compensation
which
executive
action.
compensation
taking,
private
and
interest--not
propoprivate
at
the
law
doors
only
App. 1160
84
would the Federal Treasury be exposedto incalculableexpense,but citizenswould be exposedto arbitrary action by
governmental officials to an extent altogether startling in
its consequences.Compare Garber v. United States, 46 Ct.
Cls. 503, 507-508
No one would
minimmn
Fifth
tical
(1911).
contend--least
constitutional
Amendment
sense.
Thus
compensation
is adequately
in U_dtcd
in federal
and
various
States
383 (1943),
not
Again
U. S. 114,
to compensate
to the
of the use
remedy
Claims
color
as
where
v. United
as
to
question--such
Hnrley
another
quite
thing
lawlessly,
to
authority
lmve
revolves
285 U.
the
and
the
the
to
Lc_undry
or where
about
some
S. 95,
104 (1932).
rights
left
the
Co.
only
incidental
will be paid,
property
owner
of hying
to monetary
(Kimball
damages
of
is without
price
subnfit
not treat
Court
a taking
well be the
is lawful
and
inability
taken
do
in
where
It may
that
341
in fixing,
the courts
338 U. S. 1, 5 (1949))
to say
was
inherent
379,
Amend-
Co., Inc.,
the
property
that
remedy
the taking
v. Ki_waid,
losses
in United
the Fifth
Coal
compensation
society
expense
are re-
concern".
monetary
States,
said
recognized
problems
therefore,
authority.
"evi-
323 U. S. 373,
under
Court
of a going
organized
damages
that
Business
were
_. Pewee
one whose
an available
of legal
in an
dispute
of
this
"difficult
It is no wonder,
the
States
(1951),
referred
value
damages
Corporation,
to be compensable
properly
in any pracMotor
Co.,
stated
proceedings."
Motors
in United
117
Court
by the
damage
to good-will,
the
such consequential
losses
consequential
v. General
ment.
this
condemnation
the
contemplated
compensatory
States
v. Petty
(1946),
as in
It is quite
may
be taken
to monetary
App. 1161
claims
85
which can never,
ill any
realisticsense,
replace
the
rights
leads
the
courts
lost.
It is doubtless
this
so meticulously
question
the
stitutional
action,
pair
to make
legality
right,
Tel.
39 (1st
the
Co. v. Puerto
Rico
denied,
ocably,
Comm.
the'owner
no
statute's
Congress
(sa'pra.,
tioned
tender
doubtless
to provide
p.
50)
that
for defense
of payment,
189 F. 2d
this
title
which
compensation
v ali_t, would
this
Court
irrev-
to question
the only
remedy
which would be
raise serif)us ques-
validity.":
consideration
in the Defense
personal
In Cat-
passes
opportunity
or one for
tion concerning
the
See Porto
A_.tlwrity,
that
any
will im-
construction,
validity
take
which
in an); way.
to
as a con-
may
of property,
the
it was
opportunity
leaving
taking's
full
be assured,
government
would be to accept
just if the takingwere
And
that
must
alternative
the
certain
to a "taking"
lin v. United
States,
put the matter
thus:
"The
which
of a taking
before
pursuant
the owner's
Rico
consideration
also
Production
property
Act
could
requisitioned
at all, hut could be taken
tion proceedings
in the courts.
which
led
of 1950
be requisi-
valuation
and
could not be
only by condenma-
been
the
citation
341 U.
S. 114
of United
(1951).
But
States
v. Pewee
in that
noted
(supra,
pp. 63-64), both the
of Claims and the hriefs of bothsides
case,
decision
in this
Coal
as
Co.,
already
of the Court
Com't made it
App. 1162
86
plain
was
that
not
the legality
decided,
District
Court
of the seizure
as Mr.
Sawyer's
by the
preliminary
District
While
counsel
the
involves
preliminary
were
providently
Court
of Mr. Sawyer
of the seizure
is now
end
an order
injunctions,
of that
on behalf
in the
IV
injunctions
case
opinion
conceded
and
issued
Court.
this
granting
not in issue
(R. 388).
POIN'T
The
was
and
that
ripe
to put
an
parties
should
District
it is apparent
from
the
the vital
for
issue
prejudicial
interest,
from
filed
here
of the legality
filed
not
that
Court
both
petition
final determination.
to uncertainty
of the
In order
only
to the
paramount
on behalf
of Mr.
issue
Sawyer
in
"The uncertainty
which necessarily
adheres
in the present status of these cases overshadows
all other considerations
public
and
interest
sweepingly
Again,
requires
the
decided
on p. 21, the
"As
of
an
the
parties
affected
United
States
nation
against
steel
same
respective
production
substantive
resolution
issues
in the
which
were
below."
doubt,
immediate
petition
recognizes:
disposition
rights
and
will be uncertain
to take
any
steps
further
of these
obligations
and
necessary
cessation
will be a nmtter
cases
is in
of
the ability
all
of the
to protect
the
or impairment
of
of potential
contro-
versy."
App. 1163
$7
In
and
these
circumstances,
continuing
District
decided
injury
and
in view
of the
to which
plaintiffs
are
authorized
by law.
(Opinion
of Judge
Pine,
that
would
could
alter
be submitted
the
legal
irreparable
exposed,
injunctions,
seizure
was
R. 68)
Recog-
presented
at
such
conclusion
the
on the
trial
I have
on the
reached."
(R. 74)
Accordingly,
nothing
final hearing
in the
issue there decided.
Even where
a final decision
could be gained
District
Court
an appellate
of a lower
merits
on an appeal
injunction
where--as
court
court,
by the formality
of a
on the constitutional
from an order
in the present
issuing
a preliminary
case--the
lower court
rights"
in question.
Buscaglia
Juan, 145 F. 2d 274, 281 (1st Cir.
implying
the merits
acter
that
one
jud_nent,
be understood
the
before
order
of the whole
controversy
est
would
duty
that
result
was
order
of the general
that
the
considering
char-
it plainly,
granting
a decision
detriment
to examine
where
on the merits,
not
or in any
not exist
in effect
grave
from
as deciding
would
us in a case
appeared
preliminary
demonstrable
of a preliminary
of the
in our
not
Court
Com-
of
the
by the court
or where
it was
to the public
inter-
and
remanding
finally
dis-
to enable
App. 1164
88
See Coty
v. Prestonettes,
Inc.,
; Jackson
Co. v. Gardiner
1922)
only
reason
the petition
of
the
validity
issues
moment.
irreparable
ceed
restore
Moreover
the
with
the
incident
status
quo
to terms
them
propriate
by
turbed.
An
will
showing
that
v. Corrich:,
States,
no
if this
Court
to determine
not
the
granting
or denying
be reversed
sought
threatened
to
S. 229,
231
doubt
enjoined
which
foisted
will
and
destroy
the
a
at
dis-
States
v. United
Ltd.
v. John
of Louisville
949,
956
is warranted
validity
status
ina clear
United
City
showing
the
be
of
Meccano,
injunction
to
issues
; Alabama
as
it inap-
not
absence
granted.
(1936)
(1929);
Telephone
A preliminary
be
loss
a preliminary
in the
it was improvidently
serious
for
the
to feel
should
is
whole
and
constitutional
Home
1922).
could
employment
were
Wanamaker,
Cir.
to pro-
decree
plaintiffs
v. Louisville
there
fact
continuing
permitted
injunction
279 U.
im-
the
and
position
of
the
in this case.
possible
the
with
of an
ignores
Sawyer
conditions
preliminary
order
junction
possible
Sawyer.
even
the
constitu-
last
issues
immediate
make
that
importance
bargaining
and
Mr.
finally
stage,
and
argument
the
argmnent
Mr.
in
the
inconsistent
the
hearing,
of their
Consequently
this
Were
final
in_pairment
upon
faced
injury.
pending
until
of the constitutional
are
Sawyer
of the issuance
Order--is
upon
Home
1922).
of Mr.
for
is singularly
insistence
86.
Cir.
the propriety
avoided
argument
plaintiffs
(6th
on behalf
Executive
be
disposition
S_tq_ra., p.
the
of the
This
v. Louisville
injunction--except
should
petition's
mediate
949, 957
tional
same
of Louisville
advanced
preliminary
on the
that
; cf. City
of
that
quo
(6th
where
the
action
an
act
and
is
cause
App. 1165
89
the complainant irreparable injury.
U. S. 66, 77-78
813, 815
(1939);
(1929);
Ohio
Foster
1 (1928);
Buscaglia
F. 2d 274,
281 (lst
Packi_g
Cir.
At
the
very
present
cert.
in tlm terms
been
altogether
prescribed
and
the
candid,
public
in
statement
to the government's
blunt.
mated
The
final
within
hearing
by this
a few
considerations
stating
days
the
440
of
for
obiter
(1944),
this
a short
dicta
even
-kind,
time
in Yakus
were
would
venience
has resulted
and none could result
they
have
any
this
from
from
be
in issuing
intentions
to
on May
remand
be
by this
unanimously
v. Uq_ited
these
States,
otherwise
relevance;
Court.
to reCourt's
of that
circumstances
321 U.
applicable
no
mor_
consum-
quo pending
this
to a continuation
In
act,
3 with
is even
would
Court
longer.
no
the
should
action
decision
after
leading
uphold
Court
President
quire maintenance
of the status
review would be fully applicable
restraint
his
prospective
and
not
696
of the
respect
323 U. S. 793
injunction
145
168 F. 2d 694,
should
prelinfinary
S.
278 U. S.
of 5'aq_ Juan,
denied,
Court
307
279 U.
v. Haydel,
v. Woods,
if this
injunction,
continued
Co.
Court
1944),
Corp.
least,
v. Buck,
v. District
Gibbs
S. 414,
to a case
public
incon-
App. 1166
9O
POINT
This
trict
is not
Court
a suit
had
against
the
jurisdiction
President;
to grant
and
the
the
Dis-
requested
in-
junctions.
It was
argued
below
that
although
the President
was not
could
decision
lawfully.
here
Court
stitutional
enactment.
pensable
authority,
In these
holds
party
Sovereign.
and
Waite
v. Lee,
Recently,
Corp.,
Mr.
"***
that
the
that
the relief
United
v. Maey,
States
sought
v. Domestic
announced
action
of an
taking
and
(1949),
its
of
conduct
scope
is not
is not
of con-
an indis-
against
the
; el. United
or otherwise
can
permit
a suit
for specific
of
legally
be regarded
relief
or, if within
exercise
tionally
void."
those
in the
Commerce
the
powers,
rule
sovereign
affecting
only
case,
that
as
to
as an
statutory
if the powers,
are
it
the plain-
the officer
the officer's
the
(be
so 'illegal'
against
particular
reviewed
to the
as
or their
Foreign
this Court
adherence
o_cer
property)
powers
the
tiff's
individual
officers
their
and
holding,
that
when
exceeds
un-
no defense.
or is pursuant
to an unconstitutional
instances,
the uniform
course
of judi-
in Larson
the
question
is acting
are
sued
statute,
only
Sawyer
recognized
be
precedents
The
orders
may
by any
decision
claim.
consistently
branch
is unauthorized
States
is whether
has
executive
cial
to this
If he is, Presidential
This
the
issue.
is no substance
constitu-
App. 1167
91
Similarly in
this
La_d
observed:
Court
"But
public
ceeding
v. Dollar,
officials
the
unlawfully
limits
may
a money
judgment."
The principles
v. Fox,
300 U.
S. 82
exthey
or chattels,
of Claims
to recover
in determining
by
at law or m equity,
Court
are followed
(1947),
where
realty
action
to the
which
And
a citizen's
by appropriate
relegated
738
tort-feasors
authority.
or hold
he is not
S. 731,
become
of their
seize
recoverable
330 U.
(1937)_
whether
necessarily
parties.
this
Court
those
Thus,
had
for
consideration
the question
whether
the Secretary
of the Interior
could be enjoined
from enforcing
an order
issued
under
the Reclamation
Act of 1902. This Court asserted
that,
if the
United
States
fendant,
the
held
the United
that
in a suit
an order
vested
suit
must
was
fail,
States
an indispensable
regardless
was
party
of its
merits,
rights.
This
Court
granted
and
the
that
President
the
demonstrated
Ttmt
out
was
was
present
his
suit
is not
by Willimns
party.
relief
situation,
be granted
superior
in
a local
language
this
Court
against
situations
the
v.
him
here
is further
postmaster
from
the Postmaster
General
was
peculiarly
that
"the
carrying
General.
It
not an indis-
pertinent
subordinate
where
on the
party
against
stated
of
of
Co_pa_y
indispensable
directed
order
of
Postmaster
In
an
v. Fanning,
a suit to enjoin
a postal
fraud
held that the
pensable
could
is not
party
official
plaintiff
"recognized
rule"
set forth
in Philadelphia
Stimso_b
223 U. S. 605, 619 (1912).
That
but
not an indispensable
to enjoin enforcement
by a government
which
would
illegally
deprive
the
property
de-
equitable
without
decree
to the
relief
joining
which
App. 1168
is
92
entered will effectively grant the relief desired by expending itself on the subordinate official who is before the
court." (332 U. S. at 494.) See also, Hynes v. Grimes
Pctcki_9
Co.,
v. Stick,son,
337 U.
S. 86, 96-97
73 F. Supp.
Therefore,
whether
the
judiciary.
984, 987
There
is here
counsel
Court,
to the
held
District
that
the
Here,
of Mr.
attention.
the courts
implicit
Sawyer
For
can
n'on, 1 Cranch
in this
affirma-
with
foreign
the
not
plaintiffs
which
branch
is, however,
and
will
be
seek
result
in
of the
worthy
"The
argument
of more
137
522
(1803).
Court
executive
were
the
among
(1838),
In
reach
detailed
and
on
is vested
is directed
Court for
Holze_do'rf
them
the
case
Ke_dalt
Marbury
the Ke_.dall
observed
power
on
is apparently
advanced
that
whatever
to thwart
a Presi-
others,
12 Pet.
Congress--this
,l
to take
page
which,
in a President;
from
v.
v. Marli-
case,--in
way, a mandamus
was issued
against
General
to compel
him
to observe
Pet.
the
of State
of relations
action
proposition
above,
States,
by the
master
There
would
though
the judicial
restraint
official.
Cited to the District
remarkable
discussed
United
in point.
contrary,
the argument
take no action
dent's
will even
to a subordinate
tlfis
the
Mr. Sawyer
injury.
theory
behalf
on
question
by the
injunction
Secretary
of unlawful
Co.
Holze._l.dorf
v. Hay,
by Mr.
Sawyer's
is not
the conduct
restrai_t
irreparable
The
the
to compel
Thus
cited
nmndatory
involving
governments.
only
to compel
tive action
Mfg.
(D. D. C. 1947).
no attempt
action.
(1902),
granted
Lord
this Court
need
never
reach
the
President
could be directly
enjoined
(1949);
and
the Co_lstitution
department
* * " (12
at 610.)
App. 1169
93.
"It was ul:ged at the
eral was alone
subject
of tile president,
duty
of
with
imposed
the
upon
president
him
to the
by
tiffs
is claimed,
as
execution
law;
and
of the
this
growing
out
right
of
the
obligation
imposed
upon him by the constitution,
to
take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.
This
is a doctrine
that cannot
receive
the sanction
of this
court.
It would
be vesting
in the
president
a dispens-
ing power,
which has no countenance
for its support,
in any part
of the constitution;
and is asserting
a
principle,
which, if carried
cases falling
within it, would
with
a power
gress,
and
"To
entirely
paralyze
contend,
out in its
he clothing
to control
the
the legislation
administration
the
obligation
imposed
the
laws
faithfully
executed,
to see
power
struction
to forbid
their
execution,
of the constitution
and
* "
Similarly
of con-
of justice.
that
president
sible.
results,
to all
the president
on
the
implies
is a novel
conentirely
inadmis-
a quotation
from
Marbury
v. Madison,
relied
toward
of the
the disspecific
political
tution.
by the
bearing
Constion the
powers
with
(1 Cranch
at
power
of
the
officer
whose
tional
powers
In
ever
Courts
of the
are
to
completely
restrain
beyond
an
executive
the
constitu-
Executive.
v. Madison,
moreover,
tiffs
Court
observed
at 16'4-165):
"Is
are
Federal
actions
Ma_'bury
(1 Cranch
which he is invested
165-166).
It has no
it to be contended
not amenable
the
practice
that
to the laws
on particular
the
heads
of their
of departments
country?
occasions
may
Whatbe,
the
App. 1170
94
theory of this principle will certainly never be maintained. No act of the legislature confers so extraordinary a privilege, nor can it derive countenance
from the doctrines of the conmlonlaw. After stating
that personalinjury from the king to a subject is presumed to be impossible,Blackstone (vol. 3, p. 255),
says,'but injuries to the rights of property can scarcely
be committed
its officers;
entertains
no respect
methods
Eloquent
affirmation
331
restraint
acterized
was
160 F.
U.
various
and misconduct
of the power
unconstitutional
tive departlnent
Products
Co.,
action
of those
deceived
of the
and
Federal
by officers
in-
Courts
of the
execu-
given in Flemi'ng
v. Moberly
Milk
2d 259 (D. C. Cir. 1947), cert. dis-
S. 786
(]947).
The
suggestion
that
such
is beyond
the power
of the judiciary
was charas a doctrine
which "would spell executive
absolu-
a concept
"If
the errors
but furnishes
to restrain
tism,
or delicacy;
of detecting
agents,
duced
missed,
the
unknown
judiciary
only practical
the executive
concept
to our law."
has
no
restraint
branch.
of the
The
power
Court
in
such
concluded
matter,
:
the
division
of the powers
of government."
(160 F. 2d at p. 265.)
And
this
in Un.ited
Court
v. Lee,
declared:
"No
man
the law.
ance
with
from
the
law,
States
and
in this
country
No officer
of the
impunity.
highest
are
hound
is so high
law may
lowest,
to obey
that
set that
are
of the
he is above
law
at defi-
government,
creatures
it."
App. 1171
of the
95
Nor has the judiciary in the past felt itself powerlessto
declare the illegality of Presidential orders. In Little "v.
Barreme,
2 Cranch
170, 179
served
of all unlawful
to a naval
officer
" " * * the
seizure
instructions
transaction,
nor
instructions,
would
This
Court
was
illegal,
who
acted
cannot
it furnished
issued
change
an act
have
held
p. 44)
order
legalize
further
been
that
it, and
a clear
the
personally
liable
for
rendered
damages.
by
The
a great
unanimous
Court)
issued
by the very
who had
appointed
Prilciples
of Coustitu.tio,nzl
proposition
that
the
those,
President's
Ltw
naval
Little
was
is noteworthy
Chief
powers
protection
And
while
It is cited
(1896
war prevails
recognized
to officers
in Gilch, rist
the
court,
identical
with
protests
of
the
by the
superior
doctrine
acting
v. Collector,
in the
those
that
is no defense
face
in Cooley,
Ed.)
for
the
the President
laws
and
under
them."
10 Fed.
Cas.
here,
General,
official
obedience
and
355
over
entered
to the unlawful
heart
usages
of
(supra,
substantially
to disregard
lies at the
has
by law, and
will be no
of arguments
presented
Attorney
to compel
a subordinate
order of the President.
The
as
Justice
invalid
President
p. 45)
officer
therefore
declaring
Federalist
114
order
"As commander,
all
without
trespass."
case
for
order
President
of the
Federalist
(spealdng
wartime
ob-
nature
to any
Captain
Court
by the
which,
since
that
this
the
no protection
under
decision
(stprG
the
strong
mandanms
an
unlawful
orders
of a
of Anglo-American
App. 1172
96
constitutional principles. As laid down by Professor Dicey
(Law of the [British] Constitution, 1920ed., p. 33):
"Indeed every action against a constableor collector
of revenueenforcesthe greatest of all suchprinciples,
namely,that obedienceto administrative orders is no
defenseto an action or prosecutionfor acts done in
excessof legal authority".
Counsel for
basic
h'[r.
principle,
The
and
assertion
enjoin
the
oil this
Court
cite,
branch
from
effect
enjoin
no matter
their
sole
held
not
that
be restrained
an Act
to be
v.
only
of Congress
unconstitutional,
single
same
any
was
page,
described
point
the
absolute
commenting
rule
which
Court
opinion
requires
was
of an unconstitutional
to
avoid
imnmnity
the
Court
At
laying
from
to restrain
was
at 498)
consideration."
of power
law,
(4 Wall.
careful
of Presidential
on its lack
in the
suit.
position
President?"
in principle,
against
from
the
execution
(4 Wall.
at 5000
as
the
down
After
the enactment
observed:
to judicial
interposition
to prevent
such an enactment,
when the purpose
dent and the execution
of that purpose
certain,
tinguished,
to
Mississippi
could
alleged
of law.
cannot
Branch,
startling.
decision
States
into
Act)
rule
this
not be able
arglmlent,
That
carrying
Reconstruction
the
may
as substantially
of the
United
overturn
it therefore
475 (1866).
of the
by injunction
(the
Sawyer
to
to destroy
this
in person,
Mr.
4 Wall.
President
seek
for
authority
the
because
President
Counsel
now
in so doing
that
any subordinate
how unla_ffully
Johnso_r,
Sawyer
the
right
of such
to such
a law
App. 1173
is evihe disinterby
the
97
Analysis of this keystonedecision in opposing counsel's
argumentdemonstratesthe fallacy of their conclusion.The
plaintiffs no more attempt here, in seekingto enjoin the
action of a Govermnentofficial, to restrain the President
directly in the performance of his duties, than does one
who attacks the constitutionality of a statute seekto impede the functioning of Congress.*
Neither Mississippi
v. Joh_zson nor any other case in this
Court
has
ever
this Court
subordinate
unla_4ul
held,
cannot
officials
or can
be twisted
into
meaning,
that
perform
its historic
duty of holding
of the Government
to account
for their
or unconstitutional
acts.
CONCLUSION
Whether
the position
Court--or
an effort
extreme
form--the
counsel
of support
because
an emergency
action
sented
the
the
detailed
presented.
and
If
for
the
clear
precedent
Executive
See
Ry.
or cmnpel
the
analysis
Co.
v.
nf
Dey,
Missi._sippi
:Fed.
can
hy
Johnson,
872
((3.
S.
here
properties
in wages,
some
fm'ce
for
by
C.
designed
seize
which
action
where
of ignor-
situation
increase
to labor
v.
S66,
case
device
the
that
is pre-
specifically
an
arbitrary
workers
35
hy the
he established
can by similar
in wages
W.
will
reany
Executive
doctrine
in the present
Executive
to force
judicial
without
by the
This
in precisely
present
funds
and
clearly
im-
on the ground
machinery
use
that
of Executive
declared
created
statutory
appropriate
limitations
a seizure,
form
been
District
it in less
inescapable
Constitution,
extreme
Congress
renmins
is sacrosanct.
has
as in the
to present
on a doctrine
has been
thereunder
in its most
the
by
N.
in the
"emergency"
ing
rely
from
constitutional
They seek to justify
vestige
stated
superficially
conclusion
munity
straints.
any
be baldly
nmde
future
a decrease
whatever
Brewer,
D., Iowa
d.,
.
hours
in
1888).
.
Chicago
,
App. 1174
_"
98
and
It
u_der
is not
stake
any
whatever
the
here.
such
lished,
conditions
rights
Our
system
concept
must
of these
to our
May
power
which,
District
Court
if once
in each
BLOUGH
Tt_EODORE
KIENDL
R.
C.
subnfitted,
Steel
Company
C]:[ANDLER
WESTWOOD
LEROY L. LEwis
Of Counsel
BI_UCE
BROMLEY
Counsel
for Bethlehem
15 Broad Street
New York 5, N. Y.
E.
FONTAINE
Joa_
Steel
Company
BROUN
H. PmKEm_o
Of Cou_sel
LUTHER
DAY
Counsel
for Republic
1759 Union
Commerce
Cleveland,
Ohio
Steel
Corporation
Building
To_E F. PA_ON
EDMUND
L.
HOWARD
B0_D
Jo_
at
for
estab-
of these
O'BRIAN
]:_.OGEE h_.
HOWARD
place
L. MILLER
LORD
PORTER
no
are
10, 1952.
JOHN
W. DAVIS
Counsel
for U'_ited States
I5 Broad
Street
New York 5, N. Y.
JOHN
has
to impose.
whieli
liberties.
Respectfully
NATttA_
choose
alone
of government
of arbitrary
be fatal
Tile judgments
of the
eases should be affirmed.
Dated:
tie may
plaintiffs
,.]'ONES
C. GALL
Of Counsel
App. 1175
99
JO[:tN
C. BANE,
JI_.
Cou_sel for Jo_zcs Laughlin
747 Union Trust ]3uilding
Pittsburgh
19, Pa.
Steel
Corporatio_
H. PanK_:a S_Am"
S_v_ms WARNER
CARL E. GLOCK, Ja.
W_:rER T. McGouG_
Rol3naa' W. BAlcKs
Of Counsel
JOHN
C. GALL
Counsel
for The Youngstown
Compact.y,
et al.
1625 K Street,
N. W.
Washington,
D. C.
Shcet
wnd l'ubc
Jo_N J. WILSO_
J. E. BEX_E_T
Of Counse_
CHARLES
H. TUTTLE
Counsel/or
Armco
Steel
She]]ield
Steel Corporation
15 Broad
Street
New York 5, N. Y.
Jos_mf
P. Tugrik:Y,
Of Cou,nsel
Corporation
and
Jt.
RANDOLPH
W. C]:[I[LDS
Counsel for E. J. Lavi_w d_ Company
1528 Walnut
Street
Philadelphia
2, Pa.
EOG,_R S. McKAm
,]^_.tEs CRAIG PEACOCK
Of Counsel
App. 1176
APPENDIX
Relevant
Provisions
of the
ARTICLE
Constitution.
]_.
in a
consist
of a Senate
Section
Congress
S.
of
and
[Clause
tile
United
House
1.]
States,
which
shall
of Representatives.
The
Congress
shall
]lave
Power
Welfare
[Clause
11.]
az_d Reprisal,
and Water ;
[Clause
priation
than
12.]
two
14.]
execute
and
To
grant
support
Letters
Armies,
s'hall
of Marque
Captures
be for
and maintain
make
Rules
and
for
naval
To provide
the Laws
Invasions
on Land
but no Appro;
a longer
Term
the
Government
and
Forces;
for
calling
of the Union,
a Navy;
suppress
forth
tlte Militia
Insurrections
to
and
16.]
disciplining
the
as may
To
provide
Militia,
for
organizing,
for
gcJverning
and
be employed
in
States,
reserving
to the States
merit of the Officers,
and the
Militia
* " *
concerning
Use
To provide
15.]
[Clause
War,
Rules
to that
of the land
[Clause
States;
Years;
[Clause
Regulation
declare
To raise
of Money
13.J
them
To
and nmke
[Clause
repel
of the United
according
to the
discipline
the
Service
respectively,
Authority
prescribed
arming,
such
of the
and
Part
of
United
App. 1177
2a
[Clause
18.]
To make
all Laws
which
shall
be necessary
and proper
for carrying
into Execution
the foregoing
Powers,
and all other Powers
vested
by this Constitution
in the Government
of the United
States,
or in any Department
or Officer
thereof.
AR_clm
Section
President
1. The executive
Power
shall
of the United
States of America.
Section
2.
mander
[Clause
in Chief
States,
and
the
the
Opinion,
executive
the
Duties
of
The
the
Service
of their
the United
be vested
* * *
President
Army
and
of the
several
of the United
shall
Navy
of
3.
respective
Reprieves
States,
except
He
Offices,
and
and Pardons
shall
in Cases
from
time
to time
give
necessary
and
convene
expedient;
both
he may,
Houses,
of Disagreement
between
them,
Time
of Adjournment,
lie may
adjourn
public
faithfully
proper;
he shall
Ministers;
executed,
of the United
he shall
and
shall
take
houses,
right
papers,
Care
Commission
to the
Con-
of them,
with
receive
and
Respect
them
to the
to such
Time
Ambassadors
that
all
in
and
the Laws
the
of
4.
the
people
to be secure
and
effects,
against
in their
unreasonable
be
Officers
States.
_EI_DMEI_T
The
have
against
on extraordinary
or either
Case
think
shall
of
to
of Impeachment.
judge
other
called
require
for Offences
Information
of the State of the Union,
to their
Consideration
such Measures
as lie shall
Com-
when
he
United
; he may
gress
mend
Occasions,
be
the
States,
States
in
in writing,
of the principal
Officer in each
Del_artments,
upon any Subject
relating
to grant
Section
1.]
of the Mihtia
Power
II.
persons,
searches
App. 1178
3a
and
seizures,
issue,
but
shall
be violated,
upon
probable
and
particularly
firmation,
searched,
not
and
cause,
and
supported
the persons
or things
of a Grand
forces,
War
Jury,
except
or in the Militia,
danger;
the same
offence
nor
be compelled
against
erty,
without
or af-
place
to
be
to be seized.
5.
in cases
arising
when
in actual
nor
to be twice
himself,
be taken
the
or public
shall
shall
by Oath
describing
.A1WENDME:NT
No person
wise infaalous
no Warrants
nor
any
service
person
put in jeopardy
in an), criminal
be deprived
due process
for public
shall
in the land
case
in time
be subject
of life or limb ;
shall private
just
.A.]Y_ENDMENT
of
for
to be a witness
of life, liberty,
of law ; nor
use, without
or naval
or propproperty
compensation.
9.
The enumeration
in the Constitution,
of certain
rights,
shall not be construed
to deny or disparage
others retained
by the people.
AM_._DM_._T
The
powers
Constitution,
served
not
nor
to the States
delegated
prohibited
respectively,
10.
to the
United
by it
to the
States
States,
by
the
are
re-
or to the people.
App. 1179
4a
Applicable
Provisions
Act of 1947,
15a(a)(5),
Sec.
8.
of
The
61 Star.
Labor
158(b)(3),
(a)
It
shall
Management
136 et seq.,
Relations
29 U. S. C. Supp.
158(d),
be an unfair
IV,
176-180.
labor
practice
for
an
employer-*
(5)
to refuse
of his employees,
9(a)
of this
It
(3)
shall
be
an
or its
to refuse
to the provisions
lectively
unfair
labor
the
arising
party,
times
but
this
section,
terms
in good
and
the execution
or
reached
does
require
subject
to bargain
obhgation
of the employees
confer
agreement
an employer,
faith
not
the
of a written
making
of the
respect
of employ-
or any
if requested
compel
col-
to meet
with
conditions
of an agreement,
obligation
agree
to a proposal
sion :._ * *
labor
title;
of the mutual
other
and
any
such
of
and
and
thereunder,
employees
of this
representative
or the negotiation
incorporating
for
with
of his
9(a)
purposes
hours,
practice
collectively
representative
the
at reasonable
ment,
of Section
agents--
of section
and
to wages,
the representa-
to the provisions
is the performance
employer
with
subject
qJ
For
collectively
to bargain
it is the
(d)
title.
organization
provided
to bargain
tives
(b)
either
question
contract
by either
party
to
of a conces-
App. 1180
5a
Sec.
206.
tile United
Whenever
States,
affecting
in
trade,
among
or engaged
merce,
will, if permitted
quiry
health
into
the several
to occur
the issues
appoint
involved
to him within
prescribe.
Such
report
shall
facts
respect
statement
of itsposition
mendations.
The
with the Service
President
and shall
com-
imperil
the
of in-
in the dispute
a
not
and
time as he shall
statement
including
shall
foreign
for
a board
such
include
dispute,
but
or with
of goods
report
to the
thereof
transmission,
or to continue,
he may
of
or lock-out
part
States
production
a written
with
strike
transportation,
in the
or safety,
to inquire
to make
President
or a substantial
commerce,
nations,
of the
or actual
industry
or communication
national
opinion
a threatened
an entire
engaged
in the
of the
each
contain
party's
any
recom-
the public.
Sec. 207. (a) A board
chairman
and such other
of inquiry
members
determine,
have
power
to sit and
States
and
to conduct
witlfin
either
the
United
or in private,
to ascertain
circumstances
(b)
sation
them
travel
(c)
by any
sections
and
shall
in public
proper,
and
and
Members
at
the
rate
as it may
facts
of a hoard
with
of inquiry
of $50 for
each
act in any
such
deem
i'espect
shall
day
the board,
expenses.
For
of any hearing
the purpose
of a
shall
place
bearings
necessary
to the
or
causes
dispute.
in the work
of
and subsistence
receive
actually
together
compenspent
with
by
necessary
or inquiry
conducted
board appointed
under
this title, the provisions
of
9 and 10 (relating
to the attendance
of witnesses
the production
Federal
the
of the
stroll be composed
as the President
Trade
of books,
Commission
papers,
Act
and documents)
of September
of the
16, 1941,
App. 1181
as
6a
amended
are made
board.
applicable
See. 208.
inquiry
(a)
the
petition
to
Upon
powers
receiving
a report
President
may
direct
district
court
of
any
50, as amended),
and
the
the
duties
from
Attorney
United
of
such
a board
of
General
to
States
having
jurisdiction
of the parties
to enjoin
such strike or lock-out
or the continuing
thereof,
and if the court finds that such
threatened
or actual
strike
or lock-out(i)
affects
an entire
of engaged
sion,
in trade,
nations,
commerce
(ii)
national
healtfi
join
any
such
and
to make
In
for
(c)
and
case,
other
several
there-
transmisStates
production
209.
orders
as may
or with
of goods
for
will imperil
the
shall
or orders
Supreme
the
as amended
under
section
tices
which
imperil
upon
in sections
court
writ
shall
23
Code
to
and
in equity,
be subject
court
to
of appeals
of certiorari
239 and
a district
threaten
of March
sitting
States
or
Act
Judicial
be applicable.
United
Whenever
order
not
to enthereof,
be appropriate.
of courts
of the
Court
jurisdiction
continuing
of the
to amend
appropriate
(a)
have
or the
the provisions
Act
as provided
Code,
or to continue,
the jurisdiction
order
by the
See.
in the
it shall
purposes",
by the
tification
cial
the
or lock-out,
other
"An
limit
The
review
or safety,
such
any
and
to occur
strike
1932, entitled
define
transportation,
among
or engaged
part
; and
if permitted
(b)
or a substantial
commerce,
or communication
foreign
and
industry
or cer-
has
347).
issued
an
enjoining
acts
or prac-
imperil
the
national
App. 1182
7a
health
or safety,
labor
dispute
effort
to adjust
sistance
shall
any
(b)
rise
and
settle
with
their
any
board
by
duty
been
position
made
for
parties
settlement,
available
tions
Board,
a secret
to the
within
ballot
stated
by hiln
Attorney
and
General
Sec.
210.
Upon
the
five
granted
the
and
is granted,
President
full
and
comprehensive
ing
the
findings
taken
with
by
such
consideration
the
of the
National
end
include
appropriate
tbat
the
have
by
days,
Rela-
shall
employer
take
involved
of whether
they wish to acmade by their employer
as
the
shall
board
of a sixty-
a statement
fifteen
of each
results
thereof
to the
thereafter.
of the
results
submit
of the
as he may
shall
When
such
such
to the
and
Board,
hapcourt
tben
be
motion
Congress
proceedings,
of inquiry
Relations
of
whichever
nmve the
motion
discharged.
Lahor
re-
whicll
National
which
report
shall
previously
efforts
being reached,
General
shall
recoInmendations
and
the
certification
the injunction
the
the
days
injunction,
or in
Service.
At
The
certify
in whole
by the
has
succeeding
shall
as-
Neither
wlfich
shall
employees
within
chapter.
and a statement
The President
in the dispute
on the question
cept the final offer of settlelnent
every
the
public.
the
of the
make
with
the President
and
and
to the
order,
to file dispute.
each party
of its position
er's last offer of settlement.
report
this
made
of such
of the
to
to accept,
day period
(unless
the dispute
time), the board of inquiry
shall
current
order
differences,
of inquiry
respect
of the parties
to such
of settlement
the issuance
the
duty
created
be under
reconvene
ported
Service
proposal
Upon
be the
giving
of tile
party
part,
it sball
includthe
ballot
together
action.
App. 1183
for
8a
The Defense
Production
Act, as Amended,
201.
(a)
Whenever
equipment,
thereof,
or materials
facture,
servicing,
or
component
the
2081,
President
supplies,
or facilities
or operation
parts,
use
and
of such
upon
fair
and
is authorized
for
the
(3)
for
promptly
to be paid
pursuant
be made
have
States
such
property
determine
been
exhausted,
he
the
or the
amount
the
States
payment
use
The
thereof
President
of the
compensation
requisitioned
entitled
President
same
United
provided.
the
defense,
of obtaining
of the
United
for
manusupplies
national
means
as hereinafter
parts
the
impending
and such
to any other
source
for
the
defense
terms
(1)
or component
such property
of the
compensation
other
the
reasonable
to be determined
shall
all
for
to requisition
defense
of just
that
property
2121-2123.
of such equipment,
is needed
798,
determines
necessary
64 Stat.
to receive
as just
as full
and
the
amount
compensation
complete
so determined
is unwilling
compensation
by
to accept
for
the
the
such property
without
ceeds
within
an
States,
$10,000,
three
additional
in an action
regard
to whether
in any
years
brought
after
anmunt
district
the
which,
in the
the
court
date
amount
of the
of the
when
Court
of Claims
involved
United
President's
added
to
the
ex-
States,
award,
amount
App. 1184
9a
so paid
erty
to trim,
(other
and
shall
thaa
other
Whenever
the
interest
of national
donation,
or other
shall
defense,
in any
for
or used
the national
ance
with
amended,
Act
or any
condemnation
section,
such
of
other
effort
acquire
shall
are
proceedof such
real
prop-
use thereof,
or other
personal
property
lohe deems
1, 1888
necessary
to be in accord(25
Federal
instituted
be made
by purchase,
any
proceedings
applicable
Stat.
357),
number
of persons
to negotiate,
negotiation
or for
would
with
statute.
Before
to this
to acquire
other
reasons,
involve,
the
instituted
shall
not order
sion
in advance
property
taking
has
to be
just
section
of final
been filed,
judgment
of the Act
has
of February
providing
for
title is in dispute,
the court,
upon
to the
owner
at
least
of the
section,
made,
such
posses-
centum
of
estimated
under
the
1421),
declarations.
application,
75 per
court
a declaration
of the amount
been
by
Presi-
the
to surrender
U. S. C. 258a],
pay
to acquire
as to be contrary
any condemnation
unless
and a deposit
compensation
effort
to this
in possession
doubt
of the
be necessary
judgment
the property
defense.
In
pursuant
the party
it would
the
in the
whom
as
pursuant
involved
by negotiation
unless, because
of reasonable
as to the identity
of the owner or owners,
because
large
sub-
in the
jurisdiction
that
August
this
it necessary
having
therewith,
as scrap
or may cause
temporary
with any
prop-
buildings
used
under
condemnation,
proceedings
an
deems
court
defense,
the
and
and
he may
by
erty, including
facilities,
interest
therein,
together
thereon
facilities,
of transfer,
to acquire
No real
be acquired
President
means
ings to be instituted
cated
and
to be demolished
materials)
proceedings
compensation.
equipment
structures,
or secondhand
section.
(b)
be just
first
[40
Unless
shall promptly
of
the
amount
App. 1185
lOa
so deposited, but such payment shall be made without
prejudice to any party to the proceeding. Property acquired under this section may be occupied,used and improved for the purposesof this sectionprior to the approval
of title by the Attorney General as required by section
355of the RevisedStatutes, as amended[33 U. S. C. 733;
34 U. S. C. 520; 40 U. S. C. 255; 50 U. S. C. A., Appendix, 175].
(c) Whenever the President determines that any real
property acquiredunder the title and retained is no longer
neededfor the defenseof the United States,he shall, if the
original owner desires the property and pays the fair
value thereof, return such property to the owner. In the
event the President and the original owner do not agree as
to the fair value of the property, the fair value shall be
determined by three appraisers, one of whom shall be
chosenby the President, one by the original owner, and
the third 1)ythe first two appraisers; the expensesof such
determination shall be paid in equal shares by the Government and the original owner.
(d) Whenever the need for the national defenseof any
personalproperty acquiredunder this title shall terminate,
the President may disposeof suchproperty on such terms
and conditionsas he shall deemappropriate, but to the extent feasibleand practicablehe shall give the former owner
of any property so disposedof an opportunity to reacquire
it (1) at its then fair value as determinedby the President
or (2) if it is to be disposedof (otherwisethan at a public
sale of which he is given reasonable
notice)
at less .than
such
value,
ing
to pay
reacquire
having
at the
therefor:
need
a fair
highest
Provided,
not be given
value
price
of less
an),
other
That
this
person
opportunity
is willto
or items
$1,000.
App. 1186
11a
TITLE
V.--SETTLEMENT
Sec. 501.
It is the intent
for
effective
IV
of this
Act
there
be
that
labor
OF
price
and
and
disputes
LABOR
DISPUTES.
of Congress,
wage
to maintain
to provide
pursuant
uninterrupted
effective
procedures
affecting
national
in order
stabilization
for
to title
production,
the
settlement
of
defense.
primary
to make
President
ferences
the
is authorized
between
President
the public,
to take
labor,
designate
to represent
(2) subject
such
action
as
and
appropriate
this
The
President
agencies
as he may
visions of this title.
Sec.
given
by
503.
In
to terms
prevailing
fair
with
such
conditions
and
inconsistent
Standards
et seq.],
policies
Act
other
of
the
provisions
to carry
due
established
and
which
under
provisions
as
amended
[29
labor
standards
statutes,
or with other
applicable
Act, 1947
laws
shall
be
will be
this
the
Federal
shall
will be consistent
1938,
Relations
or
established
with
Management
of
regard
practice
alike,
503
such
persons
of employment
bargaining
management
of section
such
as
and
in any
out
conference,
persons
upon
designate
appropriate
and
such
con-
government
provisions
to carry
any
stabilization
action
deem
voluntary
and
be agreed
may
collective
to labor
to the
may
conference
title.
to initiate
management,
may
and
(1)
of the
Act.
No
Fair
Labor
S.
C. 201
U.
the
Labor
under
tlfis title.
App. 1187
12a
The
Universal
Military
Training
and
Service
1S.
(a)
_qlenever
the
security
for
President
from
that
the
Act.
Section
after
the National
Security
Reit is in the interest
of the
Government
to obtain
prompt
or materials
the procurement
by the Congress
exclusively
of the armed
of the United
the
Atomic
the head
Ener_T
of any
son operating
States,
Conmfission,
Government
a plant,
or for
to place
or other
the use
of
through
with
facility
de-
of which
for the use
he is authorized,
agency,
mine,
Stat.
consultation
62
468.
any
capable
per-
of pro-
Any
person
to the provisions
order
any
President
tures,
shall
clusively
such
for the
For
the purpose
the trade
use
of this
order
(a),
to all
It
shall
is placed
(1)
to give
other
pursuant
such
orders
order
in such
and
snmll
placed,
forces
or for
other
a business
enterprise
if (1)
does
and
to the
such
busiexFed-
section.
shall
its position
in
is not donfinant,
not
exceed
500, and
operated.
of any
(Government
manufac-
orders
it is a part
owned
duty
the
small
in this
of its employees
be the
procurement,
of American
of the
business"
such
section.
designated
section,
of which
that
of this
contracts,
of the armed
(3) it is independently
(b)
claim
share
pursuant
be advised
national
or hereafter
to be "small
number
is placed
of materials,
a fair
or industry
the
of
the valid
distribution
now
be determined
shall
in such
be granted
agencies
section
program
recognize
in such
eral
an order
to the provisions
to participate
and
ness
whom
pursuant
shall
business
(2)
of this
is placed
Under
with
person
with
provisions
of
precedence
or
private)
whom
an
subsection
with
respect
theretofore
App. 1188
13a
or thereafter
placed
prescribe,
and
time prescribed
with
such person
as the Preside,_t
may
of
as
possible.
(c)
In
ease
pursuant
fails-(1)
to give
to all
other
person
with
provisions
of
sucli
whom
such
(Government
placed
with
such
order
an order
subsection
precedence
refuses
with
or private)
such person
is placed
(a)
or
respect
theretofore
as the President
may
period
pre-
prescribed;
(2 !
to fill
scribed
by the
(3)
terials
by the
to produce
ordered;
or in the
the
operate
it,
(d)
United
pursuant
event
any
of such articles
Government.
and
just
(1)
to an order
the
and
of articles
or ma-
a price,
of articles
under
possession
for
as may
rental
for any plant,
mine, or other
session
is taken
under
sub-section
facility
(c).
and
the
be
to
pro-
required
be paid
or materials
subsection
'(d)
person
agency,
shall
be
subsection
immediate
any articles
or
subsequently
under
of such
or material
placed
to negotiate
quality
to take
compensation
for
agency
facility
Government
of ark
be ne-
Government
as he nlay
to receive
or other
through
and
price
is authorized
States
as possible
of failure
at such
mine,
Fair
quality
kind,
to be entitled
plant,
or
person
quantity,
ordered
President
duction
by the
Mnd
such
to furnish
of any
thereafter
time
President;
the quantity,
ordered
at
concerned;
determined
of
or
between
nmterials
the
or as soon
the
(4)
to furnish
ticles or materials
gotiated
within
President
as determined
the
order
orders
or thereafter
have
any
to the
by
the
furnished
(a),
or (2) as
of which
pos-
App. 1189
14a
(e)
Nothing
to render
which
State
contained
possession
or Federal
curity,
in this
inapplicable
to any
is taken
pursuant
laws concerning
or employment
(f)
Any
in this
person,
section,
section
plant,
standards
or any
who
be deemed
or
facility
of
to subsection
(c)
the health,
safety,
any
se-
of employees.
officer
willfully
shall
mine,
of any
fails
person
or refuses
as defined
to carry
out
an), duty
imposed
upon
him by subsection
(b) of this
section
shall be guilty
of a felony
and, upon
conviction
thereof,
than
shall
three
years,
or by both
'(g)
by
or by
imprisonment
a fine
of not
imprisonment
As used
The
company,
ness
such
(1)
(A)
be punished
term
and
in this
more
not
than
more
$50,000,
fine.
section-
"person"
association,
for
means
any
corporation,
individual,
or other
firm,
form
of busi-
organization.
(B)
The
term
"Government
partment,
agency,
independent
tion in the Executive
branch
agency"
means
establishment,
of the United
any
de-
or corporaStates
Govern-
ment.
(2)
For
or other
the
articles
with
Resources
verted
shall
or materials
such articles
tion
purposes
facility
of
receiving
Board
to the
section,
a plant,
capable
if it is then
or materials
and
this
be deemed
producing
or if tim President
advice
from
determines
production
that
the
it
or furnishing
mine,
of producing
any
or furnishing
after
consulta-
National
Security
can
be readily
of such
articles
conor
materials.
(h)
(1)
Secretary
the United
The
President
is
empowered,
through
the
of Defense,
to require
all producers
of steel in
States
to make available,
to individuals,
firms,
App. 1190
15a
associations,companies,corporations, or organizedmanufacturing industries having orders for steel products or
steel materials required by the armed forces, such percentages of the steel production of such producers, in
equal proportion deemednecessary for the expeditious
executionof orders for suchproducts or materials. Compliance with such requirement shall be obligatory on all
such producers of steel and such requirement shall take
precedenceover all orders and contractstheretofore placed
with such producers. If any suchproducer of steel or the
responsiblehead or heads thereof refuses to comply with
such requirement, the President, through the Secretary
of Defense,is authorized to take immediate possessionof
the plant or plants of such producer and, through the appropriate branch, bureau, or department of the armed
forces, to insure compliancewith such requirement. Any
such producer of steel or the responsiblehead or heads
thereof refusing to comply with such requirementshall be
deemedglfilty of a felony and upon convictionthereof shall
bepunishedby imprisonment for not more than three years
and
a fine
(2)
final
The
day
enactment
not
President
of each
$50,000.
shall
six-month
of this Act
formation
is
figure, of the
required
execution
exceeding
report
to the
Congress
period
following
the percentage
fig-ure,
the
on the
date
of
or if such
in-
not available,
the approximate
percentage
total steel production
in the United
States
to be made available
of orders
for steel
required
by the armed forces,
excess of 10 per centum.
during
products
such
and
period
for the
steel nmterials
if such percentage
figure
is in
App. 1191