Skip to content
Chicago Tribune
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:

The federal government may order state National Guard units overseas for peacetime training without the consent of the state`s governor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In an unanimous decision, the justices struck down a legal challenge by Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich. The Democratic governor had sued, arguing that the Defense Department needed his approval before it could send three Minnesota National Guard units to Central America.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said, ”Congress may authorize members of the National Guard to be ordered to active federal duty for training outside the U. S. without either the consent of a state governor or the declaration of a national emergency.”

The case had its beginnings in 1985, when Republican Gov. George Deukmejian of California refused to consent to a training mission for 450 members of the California National Guard in Honduras because of objections to the location and type of duty. Democratic Gov. Joseph Brennan of Maine shortly thereafter refused to consent to a similar mission.

Under the sponsorship of Rep. G.V. ”Sonny” Montgomery (D-Miss.), Congress responded to these objections in 1986 by passing the so-called Montgomery Amendment, which prohibits state governors from witholding consent to the overseas deployment of National Guard units.

Perpich did not criticize Reagan administration foreign policy, but rather argued that the Montgomery Amendment violated the militia clause of the Constitution, which gives states the authority for training their militias. But Stevens noted that, since 1933, everyone who joins a state National Guard also joins the federal National Guard, taking a dual oath of enlistment.

”The governor (of Minnesota) doesn`t challenge the authority of Congress to create a dual-enlistment program,” Stevens said. ”In a sense, all (Guard members) must now keep three hats in their closets-a civilian hat, a state militia hat and an Army hat-only one of which is worn at any particular time.”

”The unchallenged validity of the . . . system means that members of the National Guard of Minnesota who are ordered into service with the National Guard of the U.S. lose their status as members of the state militia during their period of active duty,” Stevens declared. As such, they can be ordered to duty anywhere the national government sees fit, he said.

Jack Tunheim, deputy attorney general of Minnesota, who argued the case before the court, said of Monday`s decision: ”We got the issues clarified with respect to the state and federal roles in the National Guard. The court opinion also confirms the trend to increasing federal control of the Guard.” The issue of overseas training for the Guard was also raised in the 1988 presidential campaign, when Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic candidate, opposed the Reagan administration`s policies in Central America and charged that sending National Guard troops there to train was illegal.

Dukakis, too, challenged the overseas deployments in court, saying members of the Massachusetts National Guard never cease to be members of the state militia and therefore are always subject to the Constitution`s militia clause. The U.S. District Court in Boston rejected Dukakis` lawsuit in 1988.