Please see the attached reference for details.

Question: The port owners sue, stating that the President does not have the authority to seize the ports. What issue is implicated? What are the best arguments for the port owners and the President? Who will likely succeed? Please use constitutional provisions and case law in what my answer should look like. Please do not discuss the Commerce Clause or presidential immunity (as I have already gotten that wrong).

As a result of the CDVlD-1Q pandemic, increased demand, and worker shortages, the world is approaching the holidays with major supply chain issues. Two major ports in California handle about 40% of the container trafc that enters the United States and are integral to the supply chain. Due to the long hours, low wages, and overall bad work conditions, workers at the ports planned to strike beginning on Thanksgiving Day, knowing that demand for holiday gifts will encourage the ports to give in to their demands. Not willing to let the supply chain issues worsen before the holidays and needing to meet quotas for importfexport agreements with several countries, the President issued an executive order, which directed the federal government to seize the ports and continue operations in order to not default on the importfexport agreements with the foreign countries. The President admitted that there was no statutory authority for the seizure. In fact, Congress had considered legislation that would allow the President to seize private property to avoid the United States defaulting on international trade agreements, but the proposed legislation did not receive enough votes in Congress