今年唐纳德·特朗普总统以防止抗议者骚乱为由，将约700名国民警卫队成员（其中伊利诺伊州300人，德克萨斯州400人）调入联邦服役，这在没有州长同意的情况下极为罕见——此前总统只有五次这样做。他援引第10编第12406条，将这些部队部署到芝加哥，但遭到伊利诺伊州州长Pritzker以及芝加哥市的反对。10月9日，联邦地区法院法官阻止了国民警卫队联邦化和调动，导致部队处于不确定状态，期间已产生数百万美元开支。政府随后向最高法院寻求紧急中止禁令。

特朗普政府认为，法院无权干涉总统就军事问题的判断，并指责第七巡回法院剥夺了国土安全部官员的保护，错误地插手指挥体系和总统军队总司令的权力。伊利诺伊州则驳斥这一举动是政治作秀，并强调芝加哥抗议规模小、未影响移民执法设施正常运行，不构成所谓的“叛乱”，而且特朗普的行为侵犯了州的第十修正案执法权。

这是自1827年“Martin诉Mott”案后最高法院首度遇到类似问题。该案曾裁定总统可自行决定召集民兵，但那是对抗英国入侵而非平息国内抗议。如果这次紧急上诉失利，特朗普可能考虑援引1807年《叛乱法》直接动用联邦军队，但大前提是地方执法完全失效——与芝加哥现状相去甚远。本案或成为最高法院限制总统动用军队应对国内抗议的重要信号。

This year, President Donald Trump, citing the need to prevent rioting, federalized around 700 National Guard members—300 from Illinois and 400 from Texas—without the consent of state governors, a rare move that has occurred only five previous times in history. He invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 to deploy U.S. military units to Chicago, despite strong opposition from Illinois Governor Pritzker and the city of Chicago. On October 9, a federal court judge blocked the federalisation and deployment, leaving troops in limbo and costing millions of dollars; the administration then sought an emergency stay from the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration contends that the courts cannot override presidential decisions on military matters, criticizing the Seventh Circuit for depriving Department of Homeland Security officers of protection and interfering in the military chain of command. Illinois describes Trump’s move as political theater lacking legal basis, noting that Chicago protests have been small and peaceful, never disrupting ICE operations, and that the president’s actions violate state policing rights under the Tenth Amendment.

This is the Supreme Court’s first case of this kind since Martin v Mott in 1827, where the Court upheld presidential militia authority in the face of external threats, not domestic protest. If Trump loses his emergency appeal, he may try to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, but that path is more challenging, applying only if state authority completely collapses—an unlikely scenario in Chicago. The case could strongly signal Supreme Court limits on presidential use of military force to address domestic dissent.