BUS 410 MIDTERM 2 - CASES ONLY EXAM QUESTIONS ANSWERED CORRECTLY LATEST UPDATE 2026
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) - Answers Background:
During the Korean War, U.S. steelworkers threatened to strike over wage disputes.
President Truman ordered the seizure of steel mills to prevent a strike, citing his authority as
Commander-in-Chief.
The steel companies sued, and the case went to the Supreme Court.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer issue - Answers Did the President have constitutional authority
to seize private property without Congressional approval?
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer Majority Opinion (Justice Black) - Answers No constitutional or
congressional authority for the President to seize private property.
Even in wartime, lawmaking and property seizure powers rest with Congress, not the President.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer Concurring Opinion (Justice Jackson) - Answers Presidential
Power Framework:
-Strongest when acting with Congress's approval.
- "Zone of twilight" when Congress is silent.
- Weakest when acting against Congress's will.
Warned that unchecked emergency powers would destabilize the constitutional balance.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer Decision - Answers Ruled against President Truman.The
President's power was at its "lowest ebb" since he acted without—and against—Congress's authority.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) Background and Issue - Answers Background:
2002: Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FY 2003).
Section 214(d): Allowed U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to list "Israel" as their birthplace.
President Bush objected, claiming it infringed on the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign
governments.
Menachem Zivotofsky's parents requested "Jerusalem, Israel" on his U.S. passport.
The State Department issued "Jerusalem" only.
The family sued to enforce Section 214(d), and the case reached the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Does Congress have the authority to require the President to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel on
U.S. passports?
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) decision and key principle - Answers Decision:
Section 214(d) declared unconstitutional.
The President alone has the power to recognize foreign states and determine the nation's diplomatic
stance.
Congress cannot compel the President to contradict his recognition policy.
Key Principle:
The case reaffirms the separation of powers in foreign affairs.
Recognition of foreign governments is an exclusive executive power, not shared with Congress.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) outcome - Answers Outcome:
Ruling for President / Executive Branch.The Court upheld presidential supremacy in foreign
recognition, limiting Congress's influence in diplomatic recognition matters.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Pending 2025) background - Answers -The Supreme Court will
decide whether Trump's global tariffs were lawful under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA).
-Lower courts ruled Trump overstepped his authority, as the IEEPA wasn't meant to authorize new
import taxes.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Pending 2025) issue - Answers Does the IEEPA give the President
power to impose tariffs without congressional approval?
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Pending 2025) key principle - Answers - Centers on the separation
of powers between Congress (trade regulation) and the President (executive authority).
- A ruling against the President would reaffirm Congress's constitutional control over foreign
commerce.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Pending 2025) relevance - Answers The decision could reshape
U.S. trade policy and affect trillions in customs duties, creating uncertainty for international
businesses.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) - Answers Background:
During the Korean War, U.S. steelworkers threatened to strike over wage disputes.
President Truman ordered the seizure of steel mills to prevent a strike, citing his authority as
Commander-in-Chief.
The steel companies sued, and the case went to the Supreme Court.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer issue - Answers Did the President have constitutional authority
to seize private property without Congressional approval?
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer Majority Opinion (Justice Black) - Answers No constitutional or
congressional authority for the President to seize private property.
Even in wartime, lawmaking and property seizure powers rest with Congress, not the President.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer Concurring Opinion (Justice Jackson) - Answers Presidential
Power Framework:
-Strongest when acting with Congress's approval.
- "Zone of twilight" when Congress is silent.
- Weakest when acting against Congress's will.
Warned that unchecked emergency powers would destabilize the constitutional balance.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer Decision - Answers Ruled against President Truman.The
President's power was at its "lowest ebb" since he acted without—and against—Congress's authority.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) Background and Issue - Answers Background:
2002: Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FY 2003).
Section 214(d): Allowed U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to list "Israel" as their birthplace.
President Bush objected, claiming it infringed on the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign
governments.
Menachem Zivotofsky's parents requested "Jerusalem, Israel" on his U.S. passport.
The State Department issued "Jerusalem" only.
The family sued to enforce Section 214(d), and the case reached the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Does Congress have the authority to require the President to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel on
U.S. passports?
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) decision and key principle - Answers Decision:
Section 214(d) declared unconstitutional.
The President alone has the power to recognize foreign states and determine the nation's diplomatic
stance.
Congress cannot compel the President to contradict his recognition policy.
Key Principle:
The case reaffirms the separation of powers in foreign affairs.
Recognition of foreign governments is an exclusive executive power, not shared with Congress.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) outcome - Answers Outcome:
Ruling for President / Executive Branch.The Court upheld presidential supremacy in foreign
recognition, limiting Congress's influence in diplomatic recognition matters.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Pending 2025) background - Answers -The Supreme Court will
decide whether Trump's global tariffs were lawful under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA).
-Lower courts ruled Trump overstepped his authority, as the IEEPA wasn't meant to authorize new
import taxes.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Pending 2025) issue - Answers Does the IEEPA give the President
power to impose tariffs without congressional approval?
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Pending 2025) key principle - Answers - Centers on the separation
of powers between Congress (trade regulation) and the President (executive authority).
- A ruling against the President would reaffirm Congress's constitutional control over foreign
commerce.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Pending 2025) relevance - Answers The decision could reshape
U.S. trade policy and affect trillions in customs duties, creating uncertainty for international
businesses.
