First, as is discussed above, the Court concludes that Defendants’ actions likely violate the Tenth Amendment, and “[t]he existence of a continuing cons utional violation cons utes proof of an irreparable harm.” Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n.3 (7th Cir. 1978). The presence of National Guard members from Texas makes the cons utional injury especially significant. “Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Cons ution, there is also a ‘fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States. Shelby Cty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 544 (2013) (emphasis in original). Alexander Hamilton defended state militias on the understanding that they would be made up of “our sons, our brothers, our neighbours, . . . men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen,” and who would be appointed by the elected leaders of that state. See The Federalist No. 29, at 185 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob Ernest Cooke, ed., 1961). Here, to have a National Guard from Texas be deployed to Illinois against the wishes of Illinois’s elected leaders arguably empowers Texas at the expense of Illinois, injuring Illinois’s right to be “equal in power, dignity, and authority” to every other state. Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567 (1911).18