Perpich v. Department of Defense
United States Supreme Court
496 U.S. 334 (1990)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Multiple governors refused to allow members of their states’ National Guards to report to Honduras for a training mission. In response, in 1986, Congress passed the Montgomery Amendment, which stated that governors could not withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States on the basis of objecting to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such active duty. In 1987, the president called for certain members of the Minnesota National Guard to be reclassified as active duty and sent to Central America for a training mission. Rudy Perpich (plaintiff), the governor of Minnesota, filed a complaint, seeking an injunction against the Department of Defense (defendant) and alleging that the Montgomery Amendment violated the Militia Clauses of the Constitution. The district court found that the state’s power to train the militia did not conflict with Congress’s power to raise armies for the common defense and to control the training of federal reserve forces. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision. Perpich appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
