The court heard the case of Jacob E. Mott, a militia private who disobeyed orders to mobilize for service during the war of 1812 and then appealed his subsequent court-martial.

[1] The court’s ruling in the case against the militiaman had a significant impact on executive powers during national emergencies, according to legal scholars, and has been used to interpret the Insurrection Act of 1807.

Jacob E. Mott, a private in the militia, refused directives from the governor to assemble in support of this war effort.

He wrote that the President’s command of the military, including militias called into federal service, was necessary to combat foreign invasions.

Legal scholars at the Brennan Center for Justice have stated that the ruling has the effect of allowing the President to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 freely as it is within presidential authority to determine what constitutes an ‘insurrection’, ‘rebellion’, ‘domestic violence’, or other exigency that may require military forces.