Federal Executive Power - Case Take Aways

Question 1

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Answer 1

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer - Secretary of Commerce seizes the nation’s steel mills

The President does not have implicit or explicit executive power under the powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, or any implied powers gleaned therefrom, to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nation’s steel mills.

• Power must fall within his constitutional authorizations or must be conferred through a congressional authorization
• Truman points to 3 Sources of Inherent Presidential Authority
  
  • Executive power vested in a president
  • Take care to faithfully execute the laws
  • Commander-in-Chief of the Army & Navy
• The court held that there was no explicit statute or act of Congress, which authorized the President to act in such a manner.
• In the absence of authority, this is tantamount to presidential law making and a violation of the separation of powers

Justice Frankfurter’s Concurrence:

Congress has chosen to limit seizure on industry when it has in the past done this practice numerous times

Taft-Hartley Act is tantamount to an express decision by Congress to withhold power from the president for allowing seizure

Justice Jackson’s Concurrence:
A comprehensive and undefined presidential power, is source of practical advantages and grave dangers

In determining whether the executive has authority, there are three general circumstances:

• When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, the President’s authority is at its greatest.
  
  • Task for the court is to determine whether the action is within the scope of the authorization and if the authorization is constitutional
    
    • Strong presumption of validity
    • Presidential Power is at its strongest
• When the President acts in the absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority.
  
  • When this is the case, the test depends on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
    
    • Zone of Twilight (Concurrent Authority): Case-by-case assessment is necessary (Diverging point between Majority & Concurrence)
• When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, the authority of the President is at its lowest and subject to judicial review.
  
  • Only if the following are true, is the authorization valid if the there is (1) presidential constitutional authority in the area and (2) congress must not have constitutional authority

Jackson says the President was acting in Zone 3, Fails both requirements

• Seizure is not uniquely entrusted to the president and the Constitution squarely places this power in congress’s authority

Justice Douglas’s Concurrence:

• Power was necessary in this situation but it wasn’t the President’s power to exercise, it was Congress’s
• Exercises of power must come with accountability and comply with the separation of powers (Emergency per se doesn’t grant power)

Justices Vinson, Reed, and Minton’s Dissent:

• The President’s action was within the grant from Congress as part of the “war effort”
• Theater of War Concept: Day to day fighting in the theater of war is more close to fighting than regulation
• Truman was actually acting in Zone 1 because Congress has acted (allocated $130 billion to War effort) and the president was following authorization in the Theater of War.

Question 2

William J. Clinton, P.O.T.U.S. v. City of New York

Answer 2

William J. Clinton, P.O.T.U.S. v. City of New York - Line-Item Veto Act

The Line Item Veto is unconstitutional because the “repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Article I”

• The President’s role in lawmaking is limited to initiating, influencing and vetoing legislation.
• The President’s Line Item Veto power differs from that of a constitutional veto and in effect, allows the president to amend and repeal portions of acts of congress akin to presidential law making

Dissent: Believes this is an important and efficient development that has practical benefits

Question 3

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Answer 3

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - U.S. Citizen held as a enemy combatant files Habeas Corpus petition

• Court is unpersuaded by Hamdi’s argument that the government lacks the authority to detain and use force, however this authorization is inherent in Congress’s Authorization to Use Military Force
• Hamdi next challenges the government’s authority to classify and detain him as an enemy combatant and uses the lack of evidence presented as reasoning
  
  • Government pushes for a “some evidence” to be sufficient for their classification considering their interest in national security and the war effort
  • Court uses the Matthews v. Eldridge Balancing Test to evaluate the government’s infringement of a constitutional right:
    
    • Factors:
      
      • Private Interest At Stake
      • Government Interest At Stake
      • Risk of Erroneous Deprivation of the Private Interest
      • The Probable Value of Additional Procedural Safeguards
  • Court weighs all 4 factors and concludes that a citizen seeking to combat alleged status as enemy combatant must receive: (1) Fair notice about factual assertions and (2) Fair opportunity to be heard in a neutral hearing
    
    • Plurality acknowledges Hamdi has more procedural rights than he has been afforded, but when weighing the overriding government’s interest at stake considering the war effort, allows for many departures from the ordinary procedural rigor (i.e., hearsay evidence and a rebuttable presumption in favor the government)
    • Plurality rejects the “some evidence” standard stating the war is not a “blank slate” for the President but will permit