Executive Order 10340

In the early 1950s, the newly integrated American military was waging war against communist forces in Korea. At the same time, labor unions were battling for better wages in the steel industry. Negotiations between steel workers and management had broken down, and in December 1951, the steelworkers' union declared its intention to call a strike.

President Truman was extremely worried about the potential effects of this strike on the Korean War. He feared that if the steelworkers went on strike, America would not have enough steel to produce the planes, tanks, weapons, and other military supplies necessary for the war effort. Accordingly, in April 1952, Truman issued EO 10340, which authorized the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nation's steel mills and ensure that they continued in operation. The Truman administration claimed that the order was consistent with the "inherent powers" of the president, powers that were not explicitly delegated under Article II of the Constitution.

This executive order was immediately challenged in the courts by the steel companies, who claimed that Truman's action amounted to an illegal seizure of private property. They argued that the president lacked any congressional authorization to seize a national industry when the United States was not officially at war. (The Korean conflict was designated as a "police action," and Congress never formally declared war.) Moreover, the steel companies claimed that Truman had rejected the use of an existing seizure provision contained in the Defense Production Act as "much too cumbersome, involved, and time-consuming for the crisis which was at hand."

In June 1952, the Supreme Court declared the executive order unconstitutional in the case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube v.Sawyer. The Court observed, "The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here. Nor is there any act of Congress to which our attention has been directed from which such a power can fairly be implied."

Although presidents have the power to issue executive orders in times of national emergencies, the Supreme Court's decision in this case also means that such power is not unlimited.