FEDERAL · 32 U.S.C. · Chapter 1
General policy
Current through Pub. L. 119-102
In accordance with the traditional military policy of the United States, it is essential that the strength and organization of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard as an integral part of the first line defenses of the United States be maintained and assured at all times. Whenever Congress determines that more units and organizations are needed for the national security than are in the regular components of the ground and air forces, the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States, or such parts of them as are needed, together with such units of other reserve components as are necessary for a balanced force, shall be ordered to active Federal duty and retained as long as so needed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
32 U.S.C. § 102 (General policy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Frank D. Jones v. New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs and New York State Army National Guard
166 F.3d 45 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Perpich v. Department of Defense
496 U.S. 334 (Supreme Court, 1990)
Nelson v. Geringer
295 F.3d 1082 (Tenth Circuit, 2002)
Wright v. Park
5 F.3d 586 (First Circuit, 1993)
Reid Knutson v. Wisconsin Air National Guard and Gerald D. Slack
995 F.2d 765 (Seventh Circuit, 1993)
Jorden v. National Guard Bureau
799 F.2d 99 (Third Circuit, 1986)
Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
444 F. Supp. 648 (D. South Carolina, 1977)
American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio, Local 2953 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
730 F.2d 1534 (D.C. Circuit, 1984)
Johnson v. Powell
414 F.2d 1060 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
In Re Sealed Case
551 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Circuit, 2009)
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.
560 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. California, 2008)
Syrek v. Pennsylvania Air National Guard
437 F. Supp. 236 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1977)
Audrea Jones v. District of Columbia Armory Board
438 F.2d 138 (D.C. Circuit, 1970)
Georgia Department of Defense v. Johnson
585 S.E.2d 907 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Mimedx Grp., Inc. v. Tissue Transplant Tech., Ltd.
354 F. Supp. 3d 742 (W.D. Texas, 2018)
Abbott v. Biden
(E.D. Texas, 2022)
Iosilevich v. United States
(E.D. New York, 2024)
Pemberton v. Burke
18 V.I. 371 (Virgin Islands, 1981)
Opn. No.
(New York Attorney General Reports, 2005)
Opinion No.
(Texas Attorney General Reports, 2000)
Source Credit
History
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 597.)
Editorial Notes
The words "The Congress further declares * * * as expressed in the National Defense Act of 1916 as amended" and "It is the intent of Congress that" are omitted as surplusage. The words "United States" are substituted for the words "our" and "this Nation". The words "more * * * than are in" are substituted for the words "in excess of those". The words "Federal duty" are substituted for the words "military service of the United States". The words "as long as so needed" are substituted for the words "so long as such necessity exists".