The same "gunpoint" which Truman used... and which failed.
My question is whether Smithfield is a federal contractor, and whether whatever it is was actually a rated order under the DPA.
Because not even the DPA provides the authority to simply take over a private business outright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), also commonly referred to as the Steel Seizure Case or the Youngstown Steel case,[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property. The case served as a check on the most far-reaching claims of executive power at the time and signaled the Court's increased willingness to intervene in political questions.
In the midst of the Korean War, the United Steel Workers of America threatened a strike, for higher wages, against the major steel producers in the United States. As President Harry S. Truman believed that a strike of any length would cause severe dislocations for defense contractors, Truman seized control of steel production facilities, keeping the current operating management of the companies in place to run the plants under federal direction. Though the steelworkers supported the move, the steel companies launched a legal challenge to the seizure on the grounds that the president lacked the power to seize private property without express authorization from Congress.
In his majority opinion, Associate Justice Hugo Black held that the president lacked the power to seize the steel mills in the absence of statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. Five other justices agreed with the outcome of the case but wrote concurring opinions; some of these justices argued that the president might have the power to seize property absent legislative authorization in more extreme circumstances. Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurring opinion laid out a tripartite framework of presidential power that would prove influential among legal scholars and others charged with assessing executive power. In his dissent, Chief Justice Fred Vinson argued that the president's action was necessary to preserve the status quo so that Congress could act in the future. Truman was stunned by the decision, but he immediately restored control of the steel mills to their owners.
https://govcon.mofo.com/coronavirus/the-defense-production-act-a-little-known-statute-that-may-soon-be-running-your-company/
The DPA does not grant the President authority to nationalize industry.
Despite some news media claims to the contrary, the DPA does not grant the President the authority to nationalize industry. Although the DPA once contained seizure powers that arguably could have been used to nationalize entire industries, those powers, and many others, were formally repealed in 2009. Further, the Supreme Court previously rejected the President’s ability to nationalize industry in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), in response to President Truman’s Cold War attempt to seize several privately owned steel mills in response to nationwide strikes that halted steel production in the country. Thus, while Congress might pass new legislation allowing the government to acquire an equity stake in companies in exchange for bail out funds, as it did with Fannie Mae in response to the 2008 financial crisis, the DPA, as currently written, does not allow the President to take over industries or specific companies.
= new reply since forum marked as read
