[752] _Op. cit._, 219. Cf. his narrow view of the meaning of martial law in _Duncan_ v. _Kahanamoku_, _supra_, pp. 22-23. A MORE EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY ROLE FOR THE JUDICIARY. [753] _Ex parte Endo_, 323 U.S. 283 (1944); _Brannan_ v. _Stark_, 342 U.S. 451 (1952), are examples of the Supreme Court performing at this modest but effective level. [754] _The Prize Cases_, 2 Black 635 (1863), and _Hirabayashi_ v. _United States_, _op. cit._, and _Korematsu_ v. _United States_, _op. cit._, are examples of the judiciary’s willingness to accept _post hoc_ Congressional validation of an executive emergency program. THE STEEL SEIZURE CASES. [755] _Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co._ v. _Sawyer_, 343 U.S. 579. [756] 17 Fed. Reg. 3139. [757] The phrase is that of James Willard Hurst. _The Growth of American Law_, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1950), p. 397. [758] _Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co._ v. _Sawyer_, _op. cit._, at 582. [759] _Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., et al._, v. _Sawyer_, 103 F. Supp. 978. [760] _Id._, at 980, 981. [761] _Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., et al._, v. _Sawyer_, 103 F. Supp. 569. [762] _Id._, at 573. [763] Mr. A. Holmes Baldridge, the Assistant Attorney General, conducting the government’s defense, rejected every opportunity offered by the District Court to justify the seizure order under a particular clause of the Constitution, or a specific statute. See _Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co._ v. _Sawyer_, Dockets No. 744 and 745, 1952. Transcript of Record, _passim_. (Washington, 1952). In his brief filed with Judge Pine on April 25, Mr. Baldridge claimed for “The President of the United States of America ... inherent power in such a situation to take possession of the steel companies in the manner and to the extent which he did by his Executive Order of April 8, 1952. This power is supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions.” _Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction_--Filed April 25, 1952, p. 113. [764] _Transcript of Record_, _op. cit._, p. 377. In addition, the following colloquy is illuminating: The Court: “... As I understand it, you do not assert any statutory power.” Mr. Baldridge: “That is correct.” The Court: “And you do not assert any express constitutional power.” Mr. Baldridge: “Well, Your Honor, we base the President’s power on Sections 1, 2 and 3 or Article II of the Constitution, and whatever inherent, implied or residual powers may flow therefrom....” The Court: “So you contend the Executive has unlimited power in time of emergency.” Mr. Baldridge: “He has the power to take such action as is necessary to meet the emergency.” The Court: “If the emergency is great, it is unlimited, is it?” Mr. Baldridge: “I suppose if you carry it to its logical conclusion, that is true.” [765] 299 U.S. 304, 316-18 (1936).