Martial Law: Can A President Be Stopped?

The question of whether a president can be stopped from declaring martial law is a complex one, with no clear answer. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define or authorize the president to declare martial law, it also does not specifically forbid it. The Supreme Court has also never explicitly ruled on the matter, creating a legal grey area. Some scholars argue that the president has the executive power to declare martial law, while others contend that congressional authorization is required. State officials, including governors, have the power to declare martial law within their states, and Congress has also declared martial law during exceptional circumstances, such as the Civil War. The Insurrection Act further complicates the issue, as it grants the president the authority to deploy military forces domestically to enforce federal laws and maintain order. Ultimately, the power to declare martial law and the checks and balances that exist to prevent its abuse remain a contentious and unresolved issue in American law and politics.

Martial law and the US Constitution

Martial law is a vague legal term for when military authorities take control of civil governance and law enforcement. It is typically a last resort, invoked in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster, and intended for times of extreme emergencies when existing civilian government and law enforcement have ceased to function or become ineffective.

The US Constitution does not define martial law, nor does it specify who can declare it. It also does not explicitly authorise the president to declare martial law. The Supreme Court has also never explicitly held that the president can declare martial law. However, several presidents and many state governors have imposed or approved declarations of martial law throughout American history.

There is no legal path for the US president to declare martial law for the entire country. However, the US president and US Congress do have the power, within certain constraints, to impose martial law since both can be in charge of the militia. Congress might be able to authorise a presidential declaration of martial law, but this has not been conclusively decided. State officials and governors do have the power to declare martial law, but their actions under the declaration must abide by the US Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

The Insurrection Act is a federal law that allows the president to deploy military forces domestically to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence when it is necessary to enforce federal laws and maintain public order. This law has been invoked several times, such as in 1957 to enforce desegregation in Arkansas and in 1992 to control civilian violence and public unrest following a controversial court case.

The Supreme Court's stance

The Supreme Court has held that states can declare martial law, and historically, state governors have imposed or approved declarations of martial law. Almost all state governors have the power to declare martial law within their states, often in response to natural disasters, civil unrest, or other emergencies. Generals may also declare martial law during wartime.

However, the Supreme Court has never explicitly held that the president can declare martial law. While the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and can deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement, the Supreme Court's stance on whether the president can unilaterally declare martial law remains unclear. Some scholars argue that the president has the executive power to declare martial law, while others believe congressional authorization is necessary.

The Supreme Court has implied that the federal government can declare martial law, but its statements on this matter have been inconsistent. In the 19th century, the Court suggested that a federal martial law power was "implied in sovereignty" or justified by "necessity." However, it has never conclusively decided whether Congress must first authorize a presidential declaration of martial law.

The Supreme Court's rulings and interpretations of martial law have evolved over time, and the Court has acknowledged the potential for abuse of power. The Court has suggested that martial law should be a last resort, reserved for extreme emergencies when civilian government and law enforcement have ceased to function or become ineffective.

In summary, while the Supreme Court recognizes the concept of martial law and its historical use by states and governors, its stance on the president's authority to declare martial law remains ambiguous. The Court has implied a potential federal power to declare martial law but has not provided a clear and consistent legal basis for it.

The president's power to deploy troops

Some scholars argue that the Declare War Clause grants Congress exclusive power, meaning that presidents cannot unilaterally declare war or initiate military conflicts without congressional consent. This interpretation aligns with the founding fathers' intentions to prevent the president from involving the nation in unnecessary wars.

On the other hand, proponents of presidential power argue that the president, as the Commander-in-Chief, has the constitutional responsibility to ensure the nation's security and defence. They contend that the president has the authority to deploy troops when necessary to maintain the country's safety, even without formal declarations of war or express consent from Congress.

Throughout history, several presidents have deployed troops without explicit congressional approval. For example, President Truman sent troops to Korea, and President Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada, and Lebanon. These instances have set a precedent for expanded presidential power in foreign policy and military engagements.

Additionally, the Insurrection Act of 1807 authorises the president to deploy the military domestically to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence when enforcing federal laws and maintaining public order. This act was invoked by President Eisenhower to enforce desegregation in Arkansas and in 1992 to control civilian violence after the Rodney King case in Los Angeles.

While the president has the power to deploy troops in specific circumstances, declaring martial law is a separate issue. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the authority to declare martial law, and it is generally understood that the president lacks the power to do so unilaterally.

State governors' powers

The United States Constitution does not explicitly define when a president can declare martial law, nor does it specifically forbid it. The Constitution also does not define martial law and is silent as to who can impose it. However, the modern interpretation allows the president and state officials to declare "degrees of martial law in specific circumstances".

Martial law is a somewhat vague legal term for when military authorities take control of civil governance and law enforcement. It is intended to be reserved for times of extreme emergencies when existing civilian government and law enforcement have ceased to function or become ineffective.

State governors have the power to declare martial law within their states, often in response to natural disasters or some other calamity. This power is given to them by either the state constitution or the state legislature. For example, in 1903, Colorado Governor James Peabody declared martial law in Cripple Creek and Telluride to break a peaceful strike by the Western Federation of Miners. In 1961, Alabama Governor Patterson declared martial law in response to peaceful civil rights protests. In 1814, General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans, imposing strict curfews and travel restrictions on all residents.

State officials have sometimes declared martial law in response to violent civil unrest or natural disasters, such as the Akron Riot of 1900 or the 1900 Galveston hurricane. However, they have also used martial law to break labor strikes on behalf of business interests.

While the president can call the military into action to help local governments after a natural disaster, its help is usually limited. The Insurrection Act, a federal law enacted in 1807, allows the president to deploy military forces domestically to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence.

Martial law in US history

Martial law in the United States refers to instances when a region, state, city, or the whole country is placed under the temporary control of a military body, which assumes the governance of the area in question. This typically occurs when civilian authority has stopped functioning, such as in the case of an insurrection or natural disaster.

Throughout American history, martial law has been declared over 60 times, with some sources placing the number at 68. The United States Constitution and founding documents do not mention martial law, nor has Congress passed a law specifying when it can be declared. The Supreme Court has also never explained the legal basis for martial law, and it has never explicitly stated whether the president can unilaterally declare it. While the Court has implied that the federal government can declare martial law, it has never said so conclusively.

Despite this lack of clarity, several presidents and many state governors have imposed or approved declarations of martial law. For example, in 1863, President Lincoln imposed Congressionally authorized martial law on Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, suspending habeas corpus and civil rights. In 1871, Chicago mayor Roswell B. Mason declared a state of martial law in the wake of the Great Chicago Fire. In 1903, Colorado Governor James Peabody declared martial law in Cripple Creek and Telluride to break a peaceful strike by the Western Federation of Miners. In the 1930s, Oklahoma Governor William "Alfalfa Bill" Murray declared martial law at least 6 times, and possibly more than 30 times.

While the president can call on the military to help local governments after a natural disaster, their authority to do so is limited. The Insurrection Act, enacted in 1807, allows the president to deploy military forces domestically to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence when necessary to enforce federal laws and maintain public order. However, this does not grant them the authority to declare martial law.

Frequently asked questions