Martial Law: Can Governors Wield This Power?

Martial law is a highly controversial topic in the United States, with a complex history of usage and interpretation. It generally refers to the temporary use of the military for law enforcement, either to assist or replace the normal legal system during emergencies. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, the Constitution does not explicitly grant them the power to declare martial law, and the Supreme Court has never ruled in favour of this. Instead, almost all state constitutions allow the governor or legislature to impose it, and it has been used by governors in various states, including Texas, California, and Minnesota.

The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the President the power to declare martial law

While the US Constitution does not specifically define martial law, it is clear that it does not grant the President the power to declare it. The Constitution instead grants authority to the federal government as a whole. In the case of "domestic violence," the affected state's legislature or executive (if the legislature cannot be convened) must request federal aid before the President can deploy the National Guard or armed forces to suppress the insurrection.

State governors, on the other hand, have more clearly established power to declare martial law, as almost all state constitutions allow them to do so. For example, in 1934, the governor of California, Frank Merriam, placed the docks of San Francisco under martial law due to riots and tumult resulting from a dock worker's strike. Similarly, in 1843, Governor Ford of Missouri declined to call out the militia to arrest Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, who was charged with attempting to murder Governor Lilburn Boggs.

The debate over the appropriate use of federal or National Guard troops for martial law is ongoing, and Congress and the courts have often reacted swiftly and strongly to domestic military deployments. The Supreme Court, for instance, has never specifically ruled that the President or federal government can declare martial law.

State constitutions allow the state governor or legislature to impose martial law

While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the power to declare martial law, almost all state constitutions allow the state governor or legislature to impose it. This power is more clearly established at the state level, but there are significant limits. For instance, states may declare martial law only when authorized by state law, and their actions under the declaration must abide by the Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

The imposition of martial law gives the military commander virtually unlimited authority to govern an area. When federal or state governments declare martial law, they suspend all local laws, civil authority, and sometimes local judiciaries. In their place, the commanding officer substitutes temporary laws and military tribunals.

Throughout history, several presidents and many state governors have imposed or approved declarations of martial law. Notable instances include the following:

• In 1774, in response to the Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts, effectively placing Boston under martial law by closing its port and restricting town meetings.
• In 1775, Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, issued a proclamation declaring martial law and offering freedom to indentured servants and enslaved individuals who joined British forces against the rebelling colonists.
• During the War of 1812, General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans, imposing strict curfews and travel restrictions on all residents.
• In 1934, California Governor Frank Merriam placed the docks of San Francisco under martial law due to "riots and tumult" resulting from a dock worker's strike.
• In 1954, Alabama Governor Gordon Persons placed Russell County under martial law due to the pervasive influence of organized crime gangs.
• In 1963, Maryland declared martial law during the Civil Rights Movement.

The military assumes temporary control over various civilian authorities

Martial law refers to the use of the military for law enforcement, and it is often declared in times of emergency or civil unrest. While there is no universal definition, it is generally understood as the military assuming temporary control over various civilian authorities. This means that local laws, civil authority, and sometimes local judiciaries are suspended, and the military enforces substitute laws and military tribunals.

In the United States, martial law has been declared at least 60 times between the Civil War and World War II, and nine times since World War II. During the Civil War, it was imposed on border states like Missouri and Kentucky, where US forces clashed with Confederate insurgents. In the 20th century, there were several notable instances of martial law being declared. In 1931, the Texas governor declared martial law in parts of East Texas due to what he called an insurrection, and the military enforced oil production limits. In 1934, the governor of California placed the docks of San Francisco under martial law due to riots and tumult resulting from a dock worker's strike. The National Guard was called in to open the docks, and they were empowered to make arrests and try detainees.

The imposition of martial law can give the military commander virtually unlimited authority to govern an area, and it often sidesteps the constitutional division of powers by granting additional emergency powers to the executive branch. For this reason, Congress and the judicial branch tend to react swiftly and strongly to any domestic military deployments, and the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the president or federal government can declare martial law. While the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, the Constitution does not grant them the explicit power to declare martial law. Instead, this power is more clearly established at the state level, and almost all state constitutions allow the state governor or legislature to impose martial law.

However, the exact scope and limits of martial law remain unclear due to sparse and inconsistent Supreme Court precedent and a lack of specific legislation. State governors have broad power during a period of martial law, as exemplified by the \"good faith\" test established by Moyer, which allows state officials to act unilaterally and escape judicial review if they believe their actions are necessary to suppress an insurrection. Nonetheless, federal courts are likely to defer to a state governor's decision to declare martial law, and the Constitution and valid federal laws will still constrain the state's conduct.

The military commander's authority under martial law is virtually unlimited

In the United States, martial law refers to a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to take the place of the civilian government and exercise jurisdiction over civilians in a particular area. It involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster.

When martial law is in effect, the military commander of an area or country has virtually unlimited authority to make and enforce laws. Martial law is justified when civilian authority has ceased to function, is completely absent, or has become ineffective. It suspends all existing laws, as well as civil authority and the ordinary administration of justice. In their place, the commanding officer substitutes temporary laws and military tribunals.

In the United States, martial law may be declared by proclamation of the President or a State governor, but a formal proclamation is not necessary. Almost all state constitutions allow the state governor or legislature to impose martial law. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the power to declare martial law, and the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled that the president or federal government can do so. However, the Insurrection Act and potentially Title 32 allow the president to deploy the military to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement activities.

Martial law has been used to counter resistance to desegregation decrees

In the United States, martial law is a temporary state in which military authority is substituted for civilian rule, typically during a time of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. It is declared when civilian authority has ceased to function or is deemed ineffective. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the power to declare martial law, nearly all state constitutions allow the state governor or legislature to impose it.

Martial law has been used on several occasions in U.S. history, including to counter resistance to desegregation decrees. One notable example occurred in 1963, when civil rights movements advocating for desegregation and equal rights for African Americans gained momentum. The Cambridge Non-Violent Action Committee led discussions on desegregation of public accommodations, equal employment opportunities, and fair housing. However, these demands were not met, leading to large protests in the city. In response, Governor Tawes deployed the Maryland National Guard and declared martial law. The presence of the National Guard did little to quell the violence, and even after it was lifted, the situation escalated further, prompting the Governor to redeploy the Guard.

Another instance of martial law being imposed in response to civil rights activism took place in 1934, when the Minnesota Governor Floyd B. Olson placed the city of Minneapolis under martial law due to escalating violence during the Minneapolis general strike. The National Guard was deployed, and its members were empowered to make arrests and try detainees or turn them over to the courts.

In addition to these examples, martial law has been declared nine times since World War II, with five of those instances aimed at countering resistance to Federal desegregation decrees in the South. The imposition of martial law in these contexts highlights the tension and resistance that surrounded the implementation of desegregation policies in the United States.

Frequently asked questions