# Perpich v. Department of Defense **Status: stub — expand.** **496 U.S. 334 (1990). Decided June 11, 1990. Unanimous, Stevens, J.** Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich challenged the **Montgomery Amendment**, which barred a governor from withholding consent to federal active duty for the National Guard on grounds of location, purpose, type, or schedule. The Court upheld it: Congress may order the National Guard of the United States to federal active duty for **overseas training without the governor's consent** and without a declared national emergency. The reasoning rests on the **dual-enlistment** structure created by the [[Militia Act of 1903]] and the 1933 amendments — every Guard member holds both a state militia commission and a commission in the National Guard of the United States, a federal reserve component. The Militia Clauses do not *limit* Congress's Article I army-raising power; they supply an additional grant alongside it. This is the case that makes federalization a status switch rather than a transfer of personnel, and it is the structural premise of the entire 2025–26 federalization fight. ## See also - [[National Guard Federalization Flow]] · [[National Guard]] · [[Posse Comitatus Act]] · [[Insurrection Act]]