Why did the Supreme Court rule against Trump in the Illinois National Guard case??

[kentuck]

Was anyone else surprised by that ruling?

Are they trying to set their own parameters for Mr Trump? Do they feel like they are no longer in control of what they have created?

It wasn't that long ago when they were ruling in his favor over using the California National Guard? So, what changed?

Do they know something that no one else knows?

[Yonnie3]

1. Perhaps their owners are now disenchanted with Trump.

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

2. They know they are blamed for the mayhem

[Igel]

3. As somebody pointed out,

they focused on the phrase "regular troops".

The Nat Guard isn't "regular troops".

Previously, they just focused on the phrasing that said they could protect federal property and staffers--not law enforcement activities per se, but defensive, no Posse Comitatus shite.

That said, this isn't the final word; instead, this is a preliminary word prior to the first word being said--which will be the opinion/verdict from the court of original jurisdiction.

One state AG said that they "ruled" that he'd "broken the law", which is risibly false--they made no such ruling. They merely ruled that it's likely that he will not win his case (in other words, that a lower court will rule that he violated the or some law).

[Greg_In_SF]

4. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration

failed to demonstrate a legal basis for invoking federal law to deploy the National Guard. The justices stated that the law only allows for such action when the military is unable to restore order, which was not established in this case.

[Bluetus]

7. That is not all they said. They went one extra step, which is notable.

They said that in order to use the military, you must have a "statutory or Constitutional authority". otherwise it is prohibited by posse comitatus.

So in other words, Trump failed on TWO levels. There is no legal way to use the military on home soil. And he can't call up the Guard to do the job unless the regular military was properly called and could not handle the job.

Of course, in a future case, the SCOTUS could rule that the President already has the Constitutional authority. But if they believed that, then why bring it up now?

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Not Sure If This Is Right...

...but I thought they read that the law T leaned on did not apply.
That may mean these conservative justices that said "not so fast" have not completely shut the door.
Yes, I don't trust them.

[Frasier Balzov]

6. Thomas and Alito dissented, still longing for a strong man.

Gorsuch jointed them this time.

These guys are willing to take Trump's word for needing the Guard to be involved.

The majority felt they needed to be shown that more was needed than civilian law enforcement was able to handle.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_ba7d.pdf