# Martin v. Mott **Status: stub — expand.** **25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827). Decided February 2, 1827. Unanimous, Story, J.** A New York militiaman was court-martialed for refusing a War of 1812 call-up and argued the government had to prove the statutory exigency actually existed. The Court held it did not: under the Militia Act of 1795, the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen "belongs exclusively to the President, and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons." This is the federal government's lead authority for the proposition that a call-up determination is unreviewable. In the 2025–26 [[National Guard]] federalization litigation **every court to reach the question rejected that reading**, treating *Martin* as a case about a soldier's collateral defense rather than a bar on a State's suit. It appears in the 2025 Supreme Court order only in dissent. Compare [[Sterling v. Constantin]], which supplies the competing standard. ## See also - [[National Guard Federalization Flow]] · [[National Guard]] · [[Posse Comitatus Act]] · [[Insurrection Act]]