Elizabeth Goitein

Now, I think it's important to understand that the law in that case is a law that really had not been used previously in the way that President Trump had used it.

I'm talking about the Illinois case, and also similarly in Los Angeles, in Portland, in Chicago.

Exactly, where he federalized the guard.

He deployed the guard in Los Angeles.

He didn't quite get to the point of deploying them in Portland and Chicago because he was blocked by the courts.

But in all of these cases, he was relying on an obscure law.

Unfortunately, it doesn't have a catchy name like the Insurrection Act.

So it's just 10 U.S.C.

12406.

And because that law had not been used previously in that way, there really was no case law.

Other courts had not had a chance to interpret this law.

And so the Supreme Court was writing on a blank slate to some degree.

And also that law is a little bit cryptic in some ways in terms of what level of sort of obstruction of the law is required in order to authorize federalization of the National Guard.

And so I think if a majority of the Supreme Court had wanted that case to come out a particular way,

Right.

has been using the military domestically and the way the president views the role of the military inside the United States.

And I think that discomfort might very well translate over into an Insurrection Act invocation.

Well, first, I would say that whether or not you decide to go to war turns on whether or not you got the Nobel Peace Prize.

That's a pretty good sign that you shouldn't have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize.

But as a matter of law,