Labor Law - Labor-Management Relations Act - Constitutionality of the Emergency Strike Provisions

Authors

James N. Adler, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

In an effort to settle a nationwide steel strike the President invoked the "national emergency" provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act. Having made the requisite finding that the strike would "imperil the national health or safety," he appointed a board of inquiry to investigate the dispute. Upon receipt of the board's report the President directed the Attorney General to seek an injunction against the strike. Basing its determination largely upon the strike's hindrance of the national defense program, the district court found the strike would "imperil the national health or safety" and granted the injunction The court of appeals, affirming, rejected the union's contentions that the proceedings did not present a case or controversy and that the act attempted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative or executive functions to the courts On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed, one judge dissentings The statute does not make an unconstitutional delegation of non-judicial functions, but entrusts the courts with a case or controversy capable of judicial determination. United Steelworkers of America v. United States, 361 U.S. 39 (1959).

Recommended Citation

James N. Adler, Labor Law - Labor-Management Relations Act - Constitutionality of the Emergency Strike Provisions, 58 Mich. L. Rev. 595 (1960).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol58/iss4/10