... that isn't actually true.
Tragically, we have a SCOTUS that appears to put no limits, but his deployment of active-duty military under a claim of "insurrection" can be challenged. Challenges could at least slow him the hell down and put the insanity of his actions before the American people in ongoing news stories as the challenges make their way though the courts.
From Gemini (take with whatever grains of salt any AI summary requires).
A president's decision to invoke the Insurrection Act is subject to some judicial review, though legal precedent provides significant deference to the president. While the courts have historically been reluctant to second-guess a president's initial determination to deploy troops, they can review the lawfulness of the military's actions once deployed.
Limits on judicial review
Presidential discretion: In the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, the Supreme Court established that the president has the sole authority to determine when the Insurrection Act is necessary. This decision is "conclusive upon all other persons," setting a high bar for challenges to the initial invocation.
Congressional silence: Legal experts have noted that the Insurrection Act offers "neither a role for Congress nor a basis for serious judicial review," which grants the president broad authority and contributes to the deference shown by courts.
Situations allowing for judicial review
Despite the broad deference, some circumstances may allow for a challenge:
Bad faith: Courts may intervene if a president has acted in "bad faith" and demonstrably exceeded a "permitted range of honest judgment". A challenge would be strongest if evidence suggests the president fabricated an "insurrection" for political advantage.
Unconstitutional actions: The Insurrection Act does not shield the military from constitutional restrictions. Courts can review the lawfulness of the military's conduct after troops are deployed, including any potential violations of constitutional rights such as unreasonable searches or improper detention.
Violation of other federal laws: If actions taken under the Insurrection Act violate other federal statutes, such as limitations on military involvement in elections, courts could intervene.
Challenging the act itself: Some legal experts have argued that states could challenge the Insurrection Act as an unconstitutionally broad delegation of power to the executive branch.
Congressional efforts toward reform
In recent years, members of Congress have proposed legislation to increase judicial review of the Insurrection Act, though none have been enacted. The "Insurrection Act of 2025" was introduced in the Senate to add judicial review and other checks on presidential power.
= new reply since forum marked as read