Martial Law: Can A President Keep Their Office?

The concept of martial law refers to instances when a nation's armed forces assume the governance of an area, typically during an emergency or when civilian authority has stopped functioning. While the United States Constitution does not explicitly grant the President the power to declare martial law, several presidents throughout history have done so. The Supreme Court has held that states can declare martial law, but it has never specifically ruled that the President can. As a result, the President's ability to declare martial law remains a subject of legal debate and interpretation.

The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act

The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law in the United States that limits the government's power to use federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the country. It was signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes, and bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by law. The Act was passed after the American Civil War (1861-1865) and the Reconstruction era (1865-1877), during which the United States Army occupied the former Confederate States. The Act was a response to and a subsequent prohibition of this military occupation.

The Posse Comitatus Act was also passed after the 1876 U.S. presidential election, which was bitterly disputed, and the Compromise of 1877, which saw Congressmen and Senators from the former Confederate States return to Washington and prioritize prohibiting the federal government from reimposing control over their states. The Act was further influenced by President Hayes' use of federal troops to end the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, which garnered bipartisan support for the Act.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a federal law that acts as a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. It empowers the President of the United States to deploy the military and federalized National Guard troops within the country in certain circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence, or to enforce the law. The Act has been invoked numerous times throughout American history, including during labor conflicts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and to enforce federally mandated desegregation in the 20th century.

The Insurrection Act grants the President significant power to decide when and where to deploy military forces domestically. While the Act should theoretically only be used in a crisis beyond the capacity of civilian authorities, it does not adequately define or limit when it may be used. The Act has been criticized as being "dangerously overbroad" and "ripe for abuse."

In recent times, there has been debate over whether to invoke the Insurrection Act. In 2020, during the George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., National Guard troops were called in to suppress protests without President Donald Trump officially invoking the Act. Later, in 2025, there was speculation that President Trump was considering invoking the Act to address illegal immigration and border security, which are cornerstones of his agenda.

The US President as Commander-in-Chief

The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Army, Navy, and Militia. This means that the President is ultimately responsible for the safety and security of the United States and its citizens. This role gives the President the power to decide when and where to use the US Armed Forces, both domestically and abroad.

The President's power as Commander-in-Chief has been debated extensively. While the President has the power to deploy troops and use military force to ensure the country's safety, there are limits to this authority. For example, the President cannot declare martial law. Martial law refers to an emergency situation where the military takes over civilian authorities and exercises jurisdiction over a particular area. While state officials and city mayors can declare martial law, the President does not have the authority to do so under current law.

The President's power to deploy the military is derived from the Insurrection Act and possibly Title 32. This power has been used by Presidents such as Clinton, who authorised airstrikes with the assistance of NATO allies to force Serbia to end its campaign of ethnic cleansing and accept a peace agreement.

Additionally, the President's role as Commander-in-Chief also includes the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. This power was affirmed by Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1850, who wrote that the President's duty and power as Commander-in-Chief are purely military.

The US Constitution and martial law

The US Constitution does not give the president the authority to declare martial law. While the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces, the power to declare war is vested in Congress. The president's power to deploy the military domestically is limited by the Posse Comitatus Act and other statutes.

Martial law refers to the emergency power that allows the military to displace civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. In such a scenario, laws are enforced by soldiers, and policy decisions are made by military officers. Martial law has been declared nine times since World War II, and in five of those instances, it was used to counter resistance to federal desegregation decrees in the South.

Historically, state officials, including governors and city mayors, have declared martial law in response to violent civil unrest, natural disasters, or to break labor strikes. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that martial law can only be validly established during wartime or when the courts are closed due to foreign invasion or civil war. In the absence of these conditions, martial law is considered a "gross usurpation of power."

The exact scope and limits of martial law remain unclear due to sparse and inconsistent legal precedent. While Congress has the power to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, this has not been conclusively decided. As a result, the president's authority to declare martial law is subject to legal interpretation and would likely face legal challenges.

The Supreme Court and martial law

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the president or federal government can declare martial law. However, the Court has implied that the federal government can declare it, and in certain instances, has approved the declaration of martial law.

In 1849, the Supreme Court approved the declaration of martial law by the Rhode Island General Assembly in response to "Dorr's War". Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that states had an inherent right to declare martial law to defend themselves and promote public safety. The Court's ruling endorsed the constitutionality of martial law.

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln's administration declared martial law in several states to combat Union dissenters. This included the suspension of writs of habeas corpus and civil rights throughout the United States, allowing the military to arbitrarily arrest and confine people. In 1864, a military tribunal found Lambdin Milligan and his co-conspirators guilty and sentenced them to death. In 1865, Milligan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in 1866, the Supreme Court decided Ex parte Milligan, ruling that Lincoln's imposition of martial law was unconstitutional in areas where the local courts were still in session.

In 1871, Chicago Mayor Roswell B. Mason declared a state of martial law in response to the Great Chicago Fire, placing General Philip Sheridan in charge of the city.

In 1892, the governor of Idaho declared martial law after striking mineworkers blew up a mill and shot at strike-breaking workers. Over 600 people were arrested, and two dozen ringleaders were tried in a military court.

In 1906, federal troops stationed in the Presidio were pressed into martial law service in response to an earthquake.

In 1914, the imposition of martial law climaxed during the Colorado Coalfield War.

In summary, while the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on the president's power to declare martial law, it has implied that the federal government has this authority. The Court has also endorsed the constitutionality of martial law declared by state governments in certain instances, but has placed limits on its use, such as ruling that it is unconstitutional in areas where local courts are still in session.

State officials and martial law

In the United States, state officials do have the power to declare martial law. However, their actions under the declaration must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

Historically, martial law has been declared by state officials in a limited number of circumstances. For example, in 1843, Missouri sought to extradite Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, for allegedly attempting to murder Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs. In 1917, martial law was declared in Spokane, Washington, in response to a demand by IWW leader James Rowan that prisoners of the "class war" be released or the city would face a general strike. During the West Virginia Coal Wars (1920-1921), martial law was declared in the state of West Virginia at the behest of Governor Cornwell, who sought to suppress striking miners. In 1933, Georgia Governor Eugene Talmadge declared martial law to force out some of the state Highway Board's commissioners, whom he had no legal power to remove.

In addition to governors, city mayors and generals within states' National Guard forces have also declared martial law on occasion. For example, in the 1930s, Oklahoma Governor William "Alfalfa Bill" Murray declared martial law at least six and perhaps more than 30 times during his tenure. However, no state legislature has declared martial law since the Rhode Island General Assembly in 1842.

While the president of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the military, the current law states that the president lacks the authority to declare martial law. Congress might be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, but this has not been conclusively decided.

The exact scope and limits of martial law remain unclear due to sparse and inconsistent Supreme Court precedent and a lack of specific legislation addressing it. This lack of clarity could lead to competing interpretations and disputes by executive officials seeking to use military forces aggressively.

Frequently asked questions