Martial Law: Can Congress Intervene And End It?

Martial law is a complex and unsettled area of law. While the Constitution does not grant the president “conclusive and preclusive” power over the issue of domestic military deployment, it gives most of the relevant authority to Congress. Congress has passed a multitude of laws related to domestic military deployment, but these laws do not only create restrictions. Congress has also given the president considerable authority to use troops domestically in ways short of martial law. The federal government is bound at all times by the Constitution, even under martial law. Congress and state legislatures must enact new laws that better define the scope and limits of martial law.

The president cannot declare martial law

Congress has passed a multitude of laws related to domestic military deployment, but these laws do not only create restrictions. There is ambiguity in the breadth of the president's statutory authority, which points to the need for Congress to pass legislation that better defines the scope and limits of presidential powers. The law surrounding the concept is complicated and unsettled. There is no established definition of martial law, and the Supreme Court precedent on martial law is old, vague, and inconsistent. No federal statute defines what the term actually means, so the exact scope and limits of martial law are dangerously unclear.

Martial law has been declared more than 60 times in U.S. history, mostly by state and local officials. State officials do have the power to declare martial law, but their actions under the declaration must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court. Congress might be able to authorise a presidential declaration of martial law, but this has not been conclusively decided.

Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus

The law surrounding martial law is complicated and unsettled. There is no federal statute that defines what the term means, and the scope and limits of martial law are dangerously unclear. Congress has passed a multitude of laws related to domestic military deployment, but these laws do not only create restrictions. Congress has also given the president considerable authority to use troops domestically in ways short of martial law.

Martial law has been declared more than 60 times in U.S. history, mostly by state and local officials. The Supreme Court has ruled that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. However, Lincoln ignored that decision and kept arresting people without charge or trial.

Congress might be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, but this has not been conclusively decided. Congress and state legislatures must enact new laws that better define the scope and limits of martial law.

Congress has passed laws allowing the president to use troops domestically

Congress has given the president considerable authority to use troops domestically in ways short of martial law. In some scenarios, a deployment of troops under these statutes might appear similar to a declaration of martial law. However, there are no existing federal statutes that authorise the president to declare martial law.

The law surrounding the concept of martial law is complicated and unsettled. There is no established definition of martial law, and the Supreme Court precedent on the issue is old, vague, and inconsistent. Congress should pass legislation that better defines the scope and limits of presidential powers, both for martial law and for other domestic uses of the military.

Martial law has been declared more than 60 times in U.S. history, mostly by state and local officials. In the United States, martial law usually 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. However, even under martial law, the government cannot suspend or violate constitutional rights.

Congress should pass legislation to better define the scope and limits of presidential powers

There are no existing federal statutes that authorise the president to declare martial law. However, Congress has passed a multitude of laws related to domestic military deployment, which give the president considerable authority to use troops domestically in ways short of martial law. These ambiguities and the breadth of the president’s statutory authority point to the need for Congress to pass legislation that better defines the scope and limits of presidential powers.

The law surrounding the concept is complicated and unsettled. There is no established definition of martial law, and the limited Supreme Court precedent on martial law is old, vague, and inconsistent. No federal statute defines what the term actually means. As a result, the exact scope and limits of martial law are dangerously unclear. Congress and state legislatures must enact new laws that better define them.

Martial law has been declared more than 60 times in U.S. history, mostly by state and local officials. In the United States, martial law usually 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. Even under martial law, the government cannot suspend or violate constitutional rights. Additionally, martial law declarations are subject to judicial review. For example, if the federal government places a state or territory under martial law, individuals detained by the military can ask a federal court to order their release by petitioning for the writ of habeas corpus.

Congress and state legislatures must enact new laws to define martial law

Martial law has been declared more than 60 times in US history, mostly by state and local officials. However, the concept has no established definition. In the United States, martial law usually 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.

The Constitution does not grant the president “conclusive and preclusive” power over the issue of domestic military deployment. On the contrary, it gives most of the relevant authority to Congress. Therefore, under Youngstown, the president would not have the constitutional authority to override the restrictions Congress has put in place, and a unilateral declaration of martial law would not survive a legal challenge.

Congress has passed a multitude of laws related to domestic military deployment, but these laws do not only create restrictions. Congress has also given the president considerable authority to use troops domestically in ways short of martial law. Congress should pass legislation that better defines the scope and limits of presidential powers—both for martial law and for other domestic uses of the military.

Frequently asked questions