You need to read this more carefully, Scott. By agreement of the parties in their briefs the State is permitted to object to Federal activation if the activation interfered with the state's response to local emergencies. However, the agreement of the parties was for a limited purpose, and the Governor of Minnesota admitted in the foot note upon which you rely that the residual veto power is of little use. As the Governor admitted the veto power would depend upon his ability to convince Congress that the guardsmen at issue were needed for State purposes.

The veto would be valid only to the extent that the Federal activation was so intrusive as to deny the State the right to train guardsmen for the State's needs.The footnote went on to indicate that the State veto can not be exercised to the extent that that it would thwart national security or or foreign policy objectives. This would seem to be consistent with the court's ruling that the gubernatorial veto is a matter of Congressional accommodation which can be withdrawn without constitutional consequences. In the event that the State did in fact object to a Federal activation, I would have to think that the matter would again be before the court in which case my money would be on the Federal Government.