Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A Supreme Court Justice Wrote the Greatest "No Kings" Essay in History
In 1952 one Supreme Court justice wrote the greatest essay against one-man rule. Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer explained why Harry S. Truman could not seize and operate the nation’s steel mills to prevent a strike during the Korean War simply because the president thought that a strike would threaten national security. This opinion is a milestone in the rule of law and is regularly cited by conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices alike. In a dissent last month from a deportation decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor quoted the Youngstown concurrence’s observation that “ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules.” This vital principle is eroding but can be restored by ordinary statutory construction rather than by all-or-nothing constitutional rulings.
Despite the Youngstown concurrence’s fame, two critical portions of Jackson’s opinion are never quoted by the high court. The first is his comment “I cannot be brought to believe that this country will suffer if the Court refuses further to aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress.” This was a striking statement from a man who had served as one of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s closest advisers. Presidents are more powerful than they were in 1952. Yet the court has ignored Jackson’s warning and further expanded the president’s power at the expense of Congress. In the 1980s, Congress was stripped of its ability to delegate authority to the president subject to the check of a legislative veto. Last year, the court held that a president can commit at least some “official” crimes without fear of punishment. And this year the court permitted presidents to fire without cause the leaders of independent agencies.
The other forgotten part of Jackson’s opinion is this criticism of Truman’s unilateral seizure of the steel mills:
The executive action we have here originates in the individual will of the President, and represents an exercise of authority without law. No one, perhaps not even the President, knows the limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance, and the parties affected cannot learn the limit of their rights.
This line encapsulates the problem that the country faces, which is that much of what now passes for law is nothing more than the individual will of the president. Today he likes Switzerland. Tomorrow he may hate the Swiss and slap tariffs on their goods. Today he thinks that some children born here are not entitled to citizenship. Tomorrow he might decide that children born here to tourists from Greenland should get an exception. Today he could think that a problem is under control. Tomorrow he might wake up and cry “Emergency!” to claim broad new powers in search of a solution. No one, perhaps not even the president, knows the limits of the power he may seek, and those affected cannot learn the limits of their rights. Liberals and conservatives in Congress and on the Supreme Court are both responsible for this sorry situation after decades of unwise choices and neglect.
Despite the Youngstown concurrence’s fame, two critical portions of Jackson’s opinion are never quoted by the high court. The first is his comment “I cannot be brought to believe that this country will suffer if the Court refuses further to aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress.” This was a striking statement from a man who had served as one of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s closest advisers. Presidents are more powerful than they were in 1952. Yet the court has ignored Jackson’s warning and further expanded the president’s power at the expense of Congress. In the 1980s, Congress was stripped of its ability to delegate authority to the president subject to the check of a legislative veto. Last year, the court held that a president can commit at least some “official” crimes without fear of punishment. And this year the court permitted presidents to fire without cause the leaders of independent agencies.
The other forgotten part of Jackson’s opinion is this criticism of Truman’s unilateral seizure of the steel mills:
The executive action we have here originates in the individual will of the President, and represents an exercise of authority without law. No one, perhaps not even the President, knows the limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance, and the parties affected cannot learn the limit of their rights.
This line encapsulates the problem that the country faces, which is that much of what now passes for law is nothing more than the individual will of the president. Today he likes Switzerland. Tomorrow he may hate the Swiss and slap tariffs on their goods. Today he thinks that some children born here are not entitled to citizenship. Tomorrow he might decide that children born here to tourists from Greenland should get an exception. Today he could think that a problem is under control. Tomorrow he might wake up and cry “Emergency!” to claim broad new powers in search of a solution. No one, perhaps not even the president, knows the limits of the power he may seek, and those affected cannot learn the limits of their rights. Liberals and conservatives in Congress and on the Supreme Court are both responsible for this sorry situation after decades of unwise choices and neglect.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/07/greatest-supreme-court-justice-essay-no-kings.html
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
