Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers
358 U.S. 534 · Decided February 24, 1959 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers was decided on February 24, 1959 by a vote of 6–2. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Charles E. Whittaker wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “State or local government tax” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 358 U.S. 534 · 79 S. Ct. 383 · 3 L. Ed. 2d 490 · 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1489
- Docket number
- 9
- Decided
- February 24, 1959
- Argued
- November 12, 1958
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority opinion
- Charles E. Whittaker
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- State or local government tax
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 2 (export-import clause)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Charles E. Whittaker | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
Did not participate: Potter Stewart.
Full case caption
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers, Tax Commissioner of Ohio
SCDB identifiers: case 1958-046, docket 1958-046-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “State or local government tax”
- Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota
- Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Virginia
- Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers
- E T & W N C Transportation Co. v. Currie
- Territory of Alaska v. American Can Co.
- American Motors Corp. v. City of Kenosha
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 2 (export-import clause)
- Department of Revenue v. James B. Beam Distilling Co.Law held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Moore v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
- Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States
- Wirl Television Corp. v. United States
- Deen v. Hickman
- Worz, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
- Boston & Maine Railroad v. United States
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error