최신자료
Did the Supreme Court just signal the fate of Trump’s tariffs?
Card players recognize the signs of a “tell,” a player’s demeanor that telegraphs intent for the next hand. Just before Christmas, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois made a procedural ruling that prevented the Trump administration from deploying Illinois National Guard troops in Chicago. Could this decision signal that the Court may rule against the administration in the Trump tariff cases?
The stay blocking deployment of troops in Chicago was upheld by a 6-3 vote. It centered on interpreting 10 U.S.C. §12406(3)―a statute the administration invoked to federalize (activate) the National Guard to enforce federal law. The Supreme Court concluded that the government had not shown that this statute authorized the president to deploy the Guard in Chicago. It cited the statutory requirement that that the president first be “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws”―a condition it found was not met or shown. The Court’s majority (Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting) defined “regular forces” as the regular US military. Federal troops generally cannot be used for domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress (e.g., the Insurrection Act, pointing to limits under the Posse Comitatus Act). The Court found that there was no showing that “regular forces” could not execute the laws and that the legal conditions for military use had not been fulfilled.
The stay blocking deployment of troops in Chicago was upheld by a 6-3 vote. It centered on interpreting 10 U.S.C. §12406(3)―a statute the administration invoked to federalize (activate) the National Guard to enforce federal law. The Supreme Court concluded that the government had not shown that this statute authorized the president to deploy the Guard in Chicago. It cited the statutory requirement that that the president first be “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws”―a condition it found was not met or shown. The Court’s majority (Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting) defined “regular forces” as the regular US military. Federal troops generally cannot be used for domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress (e.g., the Insurrection Act, pointing to limits under the Posse Comitatus Act). The Court found that there was no showing that “regular forces” could not execute the laws and that the legal conditions for military use had not been fulfilled.
많이 본 자료
![[2025.07] 대출규제](/userdata/main/incContent/sideLink/23/aaaqQGcnBTcOc8zW9uLNz20251015165742zqfnw.png)
![[사람이 되고 싶어요2] 환율의 변화](/userdata/main/incContent/sideLink/22/aaaqQGcnBTcOc8zW9uLNz20251015165408vtzoa.jpg)
