In the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. United States et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide whether President Truman had overstepped his constitutional authority during a labor dispute in 1952, not 1934 as mentioned in the question. The steel industry was threatening to strike which would have disrupted supplies during the Korean War, so President Truman issued an executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the steel mills across America under federal control until a settlement could be reached between companies and workers on wage issues. The mill owners argued that this seizure was unconstitutional because it went beyond presidential powers outlined by Congress or Constitution itself. The Supreme Court ruled against Truman's administration with Justice Hugo Black writing for majority opinion stating that even though president has significant power when acting pursuant to an express or implied authorization from Congress, he doesn't have such power if he acts contrary to will of Congress or without any congressional approval at all especially regarding domestic affairs like this one where no wartime legislation existed authorizing such action nor did inherent presidential powers justified it. This landmark decision limited scope of Presidential power significantly emphasizing rule-of-law principle and separation-of-powers doctrine.

The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. United States et al., 1934 case does not exist in the U.S Supreme Court records, and therefore a summary of a dissenting opinion cannot be provided for it. However, there is a famous case known as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952), often referred to as the Steel Seizure Case, which was about President Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War to avoid labor strike disruptions.