During the Korean War, a labor dispute arose between steel companies and their workers. The United Steelworkers of America gave notice of a nationwide strike scheduled to begin on April 9, 1952. President Harry S. Truman believed that a work stoppage would jeopardize national defense and issued Executive Order 10340, directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills.

The steel companies, led by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., challenged the seizure in federal court, arguing that the President lacked constitutional authority to seize private property without congressional authorization. The President justified his action based on his role as Commander in Chief and his duty to execute the laws, claiming the seizure was necessary to maintain steel production for the war effort.

The case presented a fundamental question about the scope of presidential power during wartime and whether the President could act unilaterally to address national emergencies when Congress had not granted such authority.

The President's power must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. Presidential authority is at its maximum when acting pursuant to express or implied congressional authorization, at its lowest ebb when acting contrary to congressional will, and in a "zone of twilight" when Congress has neither granted nor denied authority.

The Commander in Chief power does not grant unlimited domestic authority, and the President cannot seize private property without constitutional or statutory authorization, even during wartime or national emergencies.

Majority Opinion (Justice Black): The President's power to issue the order must stem from either the Constitution or an act of Congress. No statute authorized the seizure, and the Constitution does not grant the President such power. The Commander in Chief clause does not grant unlimited domestic authority, and the President cannot make laws or appropriate property.

Concurrence (Justice Jackson): Established the famous tripartite framework for analyzing presidential power: (1) maximum authority when acting with congressional approval, (2) uncertain authority in the "zone of twilight" when Congress is silent, and (3) minimum authority when acting against congressional will.

Concurrence (Justice Frankfurter): Emphasized that Congress had considered and rejected giving the President seizure powers in the Taft-Hartley Act, indicating congressional intent to deny such authority.

The Court rejected the argument that wartime necessity justified unlimited presidential power, emphasizing that constitutional limitations apply even during emergencies.

This case established fundamental principles limiting presidential power and reinforcing separation of powers. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion created the most influential framework for analyzing presidential authority, which continues to be cited by courts today.

The decision demonstrated that even during wartime, the President cannot act beyond constitutional limits and must respect congressional authority. It rejected the notion of unlimited executive power during emergencies.

The case remains highly relevant in modern debates about presidential power, executive orders, and the balance between national security and constitutional limitations.