Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case:
Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032 (9th Cir. 2025).
Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032 (9th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 12× “PER CURIAM: In 10 U.S.C. § 12406 , Congress authorized the President of the United States to “call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State” whenever one or more of three conditions are satisfied.”
Nelson v. Geringer, 295 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2002).
“§ 102 (Congress); 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (President). When Air National Guard members are called up to active federal service, they are in the “regular” Air Force, 10 U.”
In Re Sealed Case, 551 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 12406 ; see also Perpich, 496 U.”
Trankel v. State, Dept. of Military Affairs, 938 P.2d 614 (Mont. 1997).
“10 U.S.C. § 12406 (1994). However, when a member of the “Army National Guard” is ordered to active federal duty, he or she is relieved from duty in the National Guard of his or her state, from the effective date of the order to active duty in the federal military.”
Parker v. Parker, 985 N.W.2d 58 (S.D. 2023).
“See 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (authorizing the President to call “members and units of the National Guard of any State” to federal service).”
State of Oregon v. Trump, 157 F.4th 1013 (9th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 10× “After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when “the President is unable with the…”
State of Illinois v. Donald J. Trump, 155 F.4th 929 (7th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 7× “On October 4, 2025, President Donald Trump invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize and deploy members of the National Guard within Illinois, over the objection of the state’s Governor.”
Newsom v. Trump, 158 F.4th 984 (9th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 7× “” 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (3). The panel opinion recounts some of the facts underlying the President’s claim that the situation in Los Angeles in June met that 1 Whether the panel itself is bound by its own opinion as the law of the circuit is not entirely clear.”
Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443 (U.S. Dec. 23, 2025).
· cites it 6× “In calling forth the Guard, the President relied on 10 U. S. C. §12406 (3), which empowers him to federalize members of the Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443 (U.S. Dec. 23, 2025).
· cites it 6× “In calling forth the Guard, the President relied on 10 U. S. C. §12406 (3), which empowers him to federalize members of the Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
State of Oregon v. Trump, No. 25-6268 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2025).
· cites it 4× “2 25-6268 The solution to the first issue was found in the Militia Clause, which is the source of authority for 10 U.S.C. § 12406 , the statute at issue in this case.”
Dist. of Columbia v. Trump, No. 2025-3005 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2025).
· cites it 2× “See 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (allowing the President to call into federal service the National Guard units of “any State” and to deploy those units “as he considers necessary”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.