Martial Law: Can Private Businesses Be Blocked?

Martial law is a complex and ambiguous concept that involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule, typically during times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. While it has been declared more than 60 times in US history, the exact scope and limits of martial law remain unclear due to sparse and inconsistent legal precedents. The power dynamics between the president, Congress, and the courts further complicate the understanding and implementation of martial law in the United States. This raises the question of whether private businesses can be blocked during martial law, and the answer may depend on the specific circumstances and the interpretation of relevant laws.

Martial law and the suspension of civil rights

Martial law is the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. It is often declared in cases of necessity rather than legal right, and while some countries have provisions explicitly permitting the use of martial law, many do not. For example, in the United States, the president lacks the authority to declare martial law, but state officials do have this power.

When martial law is in effect, the military commander of an area or country has unlimited authority to make and enforce laws, and it suspends all existing laws, civil authority, and the ordinary administration of justice. This includes the suspension of civil rights and habeas corpus, which is the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment. During martial law, military officers can rule by decree and detain anyone for any reason, and civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).

In the United States, martial law has been declared nine times since World War II, and in five instances, it was used to counter resistance to federal desegregation decrees in the South. There are many examples of martial law being declared in the US, including:

• In New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans, where Andrew Jackson censored the press, enforced a curfew, and detained civilians without charge.
• In Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri during the Civil War, where President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and civil rights.
• In Alabama in 1961, where Governor Patterson declared martial law in response to peaceful civil rights activists challenging racial segregation.
• In West Virginia during the West Virginia Coal Wars (1920-1921), where martial law was declared to deal with striking miners.

While the imposition of martial law can provide stability and enforce rule in times of necessity, it also has the potential to infringe upon the civil rights and liberties of citizens.

The use of martial law to suppress political opposition

Martial law is a temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule, typically invoked during times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. It grants the military commander of an area or country the authority to make and enforce laws, superseding existing laws, civil authority, and the ordinary administration of justice. While some countries have provisions explicitly permitting the use of martial law, many do not, and it often arises from necessity rather than legal right.

Poland, 1981:

General Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law in the Polish People's Republic in 1981 to prevent the extra-parliamentary opposition from gaining popularity and political power. This resulted in the implementation of curfews, suspension of media networks, and the detention of journalists accused of speaking against the government.

United States, 1815:

Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans following a British invasion attempt. He censored the press, enforced a curfew, and detained civilians without charge, including those expressing opposition to martial law. Jackson continued military rule even after the threat had subsided, arguing that it was necessary to preserve New Orleans.

Thailand, 2006 and 2014:

Thailand experienced periods of martial law following coups d'état in 2006 and 2014, which are often used to consolidate power and suppress political opposition.

Egypt, 2013:

Egypt declared martial law in 2013 after a coup d'état, with the military gaining the power to dissolve parliament and suspend the constitution.

Brunei, 1962:

Brunei has been under martial law since 1962, when a rebellion was put down by British troops. Martial law can be a prolonged state, as seen in Brunei, where it has been in effect for several decades.

The imposition of martial law can have significant implications for civil liberties and political opposition. It grants the military broad powers to enforce law and order, often resulting in the suppression of dissent and the curtailment of civil rights. In some cases, martial law may be used as a tool to consolidate power and suppress political opposition, as seen in the aforementioned examples.

Martial law and the deployment of federal troops

Martial law is a temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule, typically invoked in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. It involves the suspension of civil law, rights, and habeas corpus, and the application of military law or military justice to civilians. While the president of the United States does not have the authority to declare martial law, they can deploy federal troops to enforce law and order without an official declaration of martial law. This has been done at least 14 times under the Insurrection Act before the 1990s and 23 times since 1992 under the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard or the regular armed forces to suppress an insurrection in a state if requested by the state's legislature or governor. Section 252 of the Act also allows the president to deploy troops without a request from the affected state, even against its wishes, to enforce federal law and suppress rebellion. However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has made clear that it will interpret any statute authorizing the military to encroach on civilian government affairs extremely narrowly.

Historically, the deployment of federal troops during martial law or periods of civil disorder has been a complex and controversial issue in the United States. For example, in 1892, striking mineworkers in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, blew up a mill and shot at strike-breaking workers, resulting in the governor declaring martial law and requesting federal troops to support guardsmen. Over 600 people were arrested, and the mine workers formed a new union, the Western Federation of Miners, while in prison. In another instance, in 1934, escalating violence in Minneapolis led Governor Floyd B. Olson to place the city under martial law and deploy National Guardsmen.

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted after Abraham Lincoln's invocation of martial law during the Civil War, aims to protect civilians from being tried in military courts and prevent the use of the military as a domestic police force. However, the Act still allows for the deployment of federal troops to assist civilian law enforcement, as seen in the case of President Herbert Hoover directing the military to clear protesting veterans and their families from an encampment near the U.S. Capitol in 1932.

The legality of martial law in the US

Martial law is the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule. It is usually invoked in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster, when civilian authority has ceased to function or is absent. While the US Constitution does not explicitly permit the declaration of martial law, nearly every state has a constitutional provision authorizing the government to impose it.

In the United States, martial law has been imposed at least 68 times, mostly in limited, local areas. It has been used in a variety of circumstances, including during the Battle of New Orleans, after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, and in response to riots and civil unrest.

The US Constitution does not give the President the authority to declare martial law. While the President can deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement, they cannot act against Congress's wishes in this area. State officials do have the power to declare martial law, but their actions must abide by the US Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

Martial law and the role of the President

The concept of martial law in the United States is often misunderstood. While the US Constitution does not explicitly permit the declaration of martial law, it is often interpreted to allow for its implementation in times of necessity.

Martial law involves the temporary substitution of civilian rule with military authority and is usually invoked in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. When in effect, the military commander of an area or country has unlimited authority to make and enforce laws, as civilian authority is deemed to have ceased to function, is completely absent, or has become ineffective.

In the United States, martial law may be declared by proclamation of the President or a State governor, although a formal proclamation is not necessary. While the President does not have the authority to declare martial law, they can deploy the National Guard or the regular armed forces to suppress an insurrection or enforce the laws of the United States. State officials also have the power to declare martial law, but their actions must abide by the US Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

Historically, martial law has been imposed in the United States during conflicts and in cases of occupations, such as during the post-World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan, and the recovery and reconstruction of the former Confederate States of America following the American Civil War.

Frequently asked questions