I'm John Batchel with my colleague Richard Epstein, and we have a few minutes to address a case that is determined.

This is Trump v. Illinois, and it translates into this.

Mr. Trump has dispatched the National Guard in many states with the explanation that there's disorder that must be contained.

Three states, California, Illinois,

and I believe New York, there might have been another one. Blue states, big blue states,

have rejected the idea that the president can deploy the National Guard in their state without the permission of a governor, which was not given.

The Supreme Court in an unsigned order has sustained a lower court decision

that the president does not have the power to dispatch to deploy the National Guard

without the governor of that state making the request.

The court has decided to let that go. Does that demonstrate

the court backing away from giving power to the president? Richard, is this an example that

contends the assumption that the court is prejudiced for the president? I think in effect,

this area has always been somewhat different from the other.

And the problem here is the same problem that you have with the tariffs,

where I believe the court will again go against the president.

And so I don't want to say that it's everything.

But what you have is you have three or four momentous cases.

They're coming out very different ways, but the

size of the stakes are not measured by an empirical method that just counts cases. And the reason that

happens is the Supreme Court rightly decided that the president has a hell of a lot more power

over the district of Columbia, where he's the prime administrator and much less power

over the states. And they said, as in the tariff case, the president is not simply allowed to

...