The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Charles Sawyer. Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 744, 745

Attorney(S)

Messrs. John C. Gall and John J. Wilson, for Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al.
Messrs. Luther Day, Edmund L. Jones, Howard Boyd, John C. Gall and T. F. Patton, for Republic Steel Corp.
Messrs. Charles H. Tuttle and Joseph P. Tumulty, Jr., for Armco Steel Corp., et al.
Messrs. Bruce Bromley and E. Fontaine Broun, for Bethlehem Steel Co., et al.
Messrs. John C. Bane, Jr., H. Parker Sharp and Sturgis Warner, for Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Messrs. John W. Davis, Theodore Kiendl, John Lord O'Brian, Roger M. Blough, Porter R. Chandler and Howard C. Westwood, for United States Steel Co.
Messrs. Randolph W. Childs, Edgar S. McKaig and James Craig Peacock, for E. J. Lavino & Co.
Solicitor General Perlman, for Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce.
Messrs. Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris, as amicus curiae, for United Steelworkers of America, C.I.O.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit involving Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company and others as petitioners, and Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, as respondent. The District Court entered an order on April 30, 1952, which the Supreme Court stayed pending disposition of these cases. The stay prohibits the Secretary of Commerce from changing any terms or conditions of employment without mutual agreement between the steel companies and employee bargaining representatives.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari bypassing the Court of Appeals to address the constitutional issues presented by the petitions.
The constitutionality of the Secretary of Commerce's actions affecting employment terms without mutual agreement.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court granted certiorari and issued a stay of the District Court's order, preventing the Secretary of Commerce from unilaterally changing employment terms during the stay. The memorandum by Mr. Justice Burton, joined by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, expressed a preference to deny certiorari to allow the Court of Appeals to consider the constitutional issues first, emphasizing the value of intermediate appellate review for a sound judicial process. Despite this view, the majority granted certiorari and stayed the District Court's order, reflecting the Court's intent to address the constitutional questions directly and promptly while preserving the status quo in labor relations.

Holding and Implications

Certiorari granted and stay issued.

The Supreme Court's order stays the District Court's April 30, 1952 order, preventing the Secretary of Commerce from altering employment terms without agreement between the steel companies and employee representatives during the stay. This decision maintains the existing employment conditions until the Court fully resolves the constitutional issues. No new precedent was established by this procedural order; rather, it preserves the status quo pending further judicial consideration.

Show full summary ...

The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Charles Sawyer. Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce

Certiorari granted.

The order of the District Court entered April 30, 1952, is hereby stayed pending disposition of these cases by this Court. It is further ordered, as a provision of this stay, that Charles S. Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce (respondent in No. 744 and petitioner in No. 745) take no action to change any term or condition of employment while this stay is in effect unless such change is mutually agreed upon by the steel companies (petitioners in No. 744 and respondents in No. 745) and the bargaining representatives of the employees.

Mr. Justice BURTON, with whom Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concurred, voted to deny certiorari, and filed a memorandum expressing their reasons therefor. The cases are assigned for argument on Monday, May 12, next.

Memorandum by Mr. Justice BURTON with whom Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concurred:

The first question before this Court is that presented by the petitions for a writ of certiorari by-passing the Court of Appeals. The constitutional issue which is the subject of the appeal deserves for its solution all of the wisdom that our judicial process makes available. The need for soundness in the result outweighs the need for speed in reaching it. The Nation is entitled to the substantial value inherent in an intermediate consideration of the issue by the Court of Appeals. Little time will be lost and none will be wasted in seeking it. The time taken will be available also for constructive consideration by the parties of their own positions and responsibilities. Accordingly, I would deny the petitions for certiorari and thus allow the case to be heard by the Court of Appeals. Such action would eliminate the consideration here of the terms of the stay of the order of the District Court heretofore issued by the Court of Appeals. However, certiorari being granted here, I join in all particulars in the order of this Court, now issued, staying that of the District Court.