Evening star., 1952-06-02
& Companies Obey Order.
Then File Proceedings

Companies { Obey Order,
Then File Proceedings
Obeying the Secretary's orders
under protest, the companies
brought proceedings against. him
in the District Court. Their
complaints charged. that the
seizure was not authorized by
an act. of Congress or by any
constitutional provisions. The
District Court was asked to de-
clare the orders of the President
and the Secretary invalid and
to issue preliminary and per-
manent injunctions restraining
their enforcement. Opposing
the, motion for preliminary in
junction, the United States as
serted that a strike disrupting
steel production for even a brief
period would so endanger the
well-being and safety of the
Nation that the President had
inherent power" to do what he
had done-power supported by
the Constitution, by historical
precedent, and by court de-
cisions." The Government also
contended that in any event no
preliminary injunction should
be issued because the ?. COM
panies had made no showing
that their available legal rene
dies were inadequate or that
their injuries from seizure would
be irreparable. Holding against
the Government on all points,
the District Court on April 80
issued a preliminary injunction
restraining the Secretary from
continuing the seizure and pos
session of the plant -. and
from acting under the purported
authority of executive order No.
10S40." On the same day the
Court of Appeals stayed the
District Courts injunction
Deeming it best that the issues
raised be promptly decided by
this court, we granted certiorari
on May 3 and set the cause for
argument on May IL.
Two Crucial Issues.
Two crucial issues have de-
veloped: First. Should final de-
termination of the constitu-
tional validity of the Presidents
order be made in this case
which has, proceeded no further
than the preliminary injunc-
ton stage? Second. If so, is
the seizure order within the
constitutional power of the
President?
It is urged that there were
non-constitutional grounds upon
which the District Court could
have denied the preliminary in
junction and thus have followed
the customary judicial practice
of declining to reach and de-
eide constitutional questions
until compelled to do so. On
this basis it is argued that
equity's extraordinary injunc-
tive relief should have been
denied because (a) seizure of
the companies properties did
not inf1ict irreparable damages.
and (b) there were available
legal remedies adequate to af-
ford compensation for any pos
Sible damages which they might
suffer. While separately argued
by the Government, these two
contentious are here closely re-
lated, if not identical. Argu-
ments as to both rest in large
part on the Governments claim
that should the seizure ulti-
mately be held unlawful the
companies could recover full
compensation in the Court Of
Claims for the unlawful taking.
Prior cases in this Court have
cast doubt on the right to re-
cover in the Court of Claims on
account of properties unlaw-
fully taken by Government Of
ficials for public use as these
properties were alleged to have
been. See e. g., Hooe VS.. United
States, 218 u. S. 322, 335-336;
United States v. North American
Co., 253 U. S. $50. 333. But see
Larson v. Domestic & Foreign
Corp. 337 u. 8. 682. 701-702.
Moreover, seizure and govern
mental operation of these going
businesses were bound to result
in many present and future
damages of such nature as to
be difficult, if not incapable, OF
measurement. Viewing the case
this way, and in the light OF
the facts presented, the District
Court saw no reason for delay
ing decision of the constitu-
tional Validity of the orders
We agree with the District
Court and can see no reason
why that question was not ripe
for determination on the record
presented. We shall therefore
consider and determine thai
question now.
u.
The Presidents power to ISSUE
the order must stem either from
an act Of Congress or from the
Constitution itself. There is M
statute that expressly authorizes
the President to take possession
of property as he did here. Mo-
Is there any act Of Congress t.
which our attention has beer
directed from which such ,
power, can fairly be implied
Indeed, we do not understand
the Government to rely on stat
utory authorization for thi
seizure. There are two statute
which do authorize the Presi
dent to take both personal an,
$50 = e., S,as.k n ivn !. NN4a