A woman was released on electronic monitoring Wednesday after authorities said she drove drunk and caused a crash that injured a family of four in Lombard, Illinois.

Among the injured was a 10-year-old boy.

Jaquelin Onofre Reyes, 27, appeared in DuPage County First Appearance Court on Wednesday morning. The DuPage County State’s Attorney’s office had asked to have Reyes detained on a charge of felony aggravated driving under the influence causing great bodily harm, but Judge Joshua Dieden denied the motion.

Onofre Reyes was instead released on electronic monitoring — with conditions that she may not possess or consume any alcohol or drugs.

Lombard police were called at 12:12 p.m. Tuesday for the crash at Route 53 and the Illinois Prairie Path.

Authorities said Onofre Reyes was driving a Hummer sport-utility vehicle south on Route 53 when she veered into the northbound lanes in an attempt to pass traffic in front of her. When Onofre Reyes tried to get back into the southbound lanes, she hit another car, crossed back into oncoming northbound traffic, and hit an Infiniti sport-utility vehicle headed north, authorities said.

Inside the Infiniti were a family of four, with two children ages 7 and 10. Everyone in the family was taken to the hospital, authorities said.

The 10-year-old boy suffered serious injuries and has been taken to another hospital for surgery, authorities said.

Police found that Onofre Reyes had two open containers of alcoholic beverages in her car at the time of the crash, authorities said. Her blood alcohol level was .238 — nearly three times the legal limit, authorities said.

“This incident involved a reckless and irresponsible individual who allegedly chose to operate a motor vehicle while impaired with complete disregard for the safety of others,” Lombard police Chief Joe Grage said in a news release. “Unfortunately, this decision led to a crash that caused significant injuries to innocent people.”

Onofre Reyes is due back in court on Jan. 20 in front of DuPage County Judge Ann Celine O’Hallaren Walsh.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuffed the Trump administration over its plan to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois over the strenuous objections of local officials.

The court in an unsigned order turned away an emergency request made by the administration, which said the troops are needed to protect federal agents involved in immigration enforcement in the Chicago area.

Although the decision is a preliminary one involving only Chicago, it will likely bolster similar challenges made to National Guard deployments in other cities, with the opinion setting significant new limits on the president’s ability to do so.

The decision marked a rare defeat for President Donald Trump at the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, after the administration secured a series of high-profile wins this year.

In doing so, the court at least provisionally rejected the Trump administration’s view that the situation on the ground is so chaotic that it justifies invoking a federal law that allows the president to call National Guard troops into federal service in extreme situations.

Those circumstances can include when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” or “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

The court ruled against the administration on a threshold question, finding that the law’s reference to the “regular forces” only allows for the National Guard to be called up if regular military forces are unable to restore order.

The court order said that Trump could only call up the military where they could “legally execute the laws” and that power is limited under another law called the Posse Comitatus Act.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said.

As a result, the Trump administration has failed to show that the National Guard law “permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” the court added.

The decision saw the court’s six conservative justices split, with three in the majority and three in dissent. The court’s three liberals were in the majority.

The dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

“I have serious doubts about the correctness of the court’s views. And I strongly disagree with the manner in which the court has disposed of this application,” Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“There is no basis for rejecting the President’s determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws using the civilian law enforcement resources at his command,” he added.

Trump’s unusual move to deploy the National Guard, characteristic of his aggressive and unprecedented use of executive power, was based on his administration’s stated assessment that the Chicago area was descending into lawless chaos.

That view of protests against surging immigration enforcement actions in Chicago is rejected by local officials as well as judges who have ruled against the administration.

The deployment was challenged in court by the Democratic-led state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, with their lawyers saying Trump had an ulterior motive for the deployment: to punish his political opponents.

They argued in court papers that Trump’s invocation of the federal law was not justified and that his actions also violated the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which places limits on federal power, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from conducting law enforcement duties.

U.S. District Judge April Perry said she “found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion” and issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the state.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely reached the same conclusion, saying “the facts do not justify the president’s actions.”

The court did narrow Perry’s order, saying that Trump could federalize the troops, but could not deploy them.

The Supreme Court has frequently ruled in Trump’s favor in recent months as the administration has rushed to the justices when policies are blocked by lower courts.

Trump’s efforts to impose federal control over cities led by Democrats who vociferously oppose his presidency are not just limited to Chicago. He has also sought to deploy the National Guard in the District of Columbia, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon.

Most recently, hundreds of National Guard troops deployed in Illinois and Oregon were set to return to their home states.

The deployment in the District of Columbia, which is a federal enclave with less local control, has been challenged in court, but there has been no ruling yet.

A federal appeals court allowed the Los Angeles deployment, and a different panel of judges on Oct. 20 ruled similarly in relation to Portland.