Connection lost
Server error
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: President Truman seized steel mills to avert a strike during the Korean War. The Supreme Court ruled the seizure unconstitutional, finding the President lacked authority from Congress or the Constitution and had usurped Congress’s lawmaking power, violating the separation of powers.
Legal Significance: Establishes the foundational framework for analyzing the limits of presidential power, holding that the President’s authority is not absolute, even in a national emergency, and is constrained by the separation of powers, particularly when acting contrary to the will of Congress.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
During the Korean War, a labor dispute between the nation’s steel companies and their employees threatened a nationwide strike. President Harry S. Truman, believing a halt in steel production would jeopardize national defense, issued Executive Order 10340 directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate the steel mills. The President did not act pursuant to any specific statutory authority. Instead, he asserted that the action was justified by the aggregate of his constitutional powers as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief to avert a national catastrophe. Congress had previously enacted the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which provided procedures for handling national emergency strikes but did not authorize government seizure. In fact, Congress had considered and rejected an amendment that would have granted such seizure power. The steel companies complied with the seizure order under protest and immediately sought an injunction, arguing the President had exceeded his constitutional authority and unilaterally engaged in lawmaking, a function reserved for Congress.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the President of the United States have the constitutional authority to seize private property in a national emergency without express authorization from Congress or the Constitution itself?
No. The President’s seizure of the steel mills was an unconstitutional exercise Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate v
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the President of the United States have the constitutional authority to seize private property in a national emergency without express authorization from Congress or the Constitution itself?
Conclusion
This landmark decision firmly establishes that the President's power is not absolute Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
Legal Rule
The President's power to issue an executive order must stem from either Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex e
Legal Analysis
The Court, in Justice Black's majority opinion, applied a formalist separation of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The President lacks the constitutional authority to seize private property, even