Martial Law: Covid-19'S Impact On Civil Liberties

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread panic and anxiety, with many people fearing that the activation of the National Guard in response to the outbreak could lead to martial law. In the United States, martial law refers to when a region, state, city, or the entire nation is placed under the control of a military body. While the National Guard has been activated in several states to assist with tasks such as distributing food and medical supplies, federal and state authorities have repeatedly debunked rumors of a military-enforced national lockdown or martial law. Despite this, some people remain concerned that the government may be preparing to declare martial law, citing signs such as the increased presence of military personnel and curbs on civil liberties.

Martial law declaration by the president or Congress

The activation of the National Guard units to help with the response to the coronavirus pandemic has sparked rumours of a national lockdown or even martial law. However, there are currently no plans for a national quarantine or martial law.

In the United States, martial law has been imposed at least 68 times, mostly in limited, local areas. It has been declared twice for war or invasion, seven times for domestic war or insurrection, eleven times for riot or civil unrest, 29 times for labour dispute, four times for natural disaster, and fifteen times for other reasons.

On a national level, both the US President and the US Congress have the power, within certain constraints, to impose martial law since both can be in charge of the militia. However, the Constitution does not give the president "conclusive and preclusive" authority over the domestic use of the military. Instead, it explicitly vests power in the legislative branch, meaning the president cannot act against Congress's wishes in this area.

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed by Congress in 1878, forbids US military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. This means that even if the president could declare martial law, the military's actions would be subject to congressional approval and judicial review.

Some scholars believe the president has the executive power to declare martial law, while others believe congressional authorization is needed. The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on this question, and its statements on the matter have been inconsistent.

While the president has extensive authority to deploy the military domestically, such as through the Insurrection Act, it is clear that Congress has the power to impose checks on the president's use of the military.

State governor's powers to declare martial law

In the United States, martial law refers to instances in history when a region, state, city, or the entire country was placed under the control of a military body. The US President and Congress have the power to impose martial law, as they can be in charge of the militia.

State governors also have the power to impose martial law within the borders of their state. This power has been used in several instances throughout history. For example, in 1775, Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, declared martial law, offering freedom to indentured servants and enslaved individuals who joined British forces against rebelling colonists. In 1812, General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans, and in 1961, Governor Patterson of Alabama declared martial law in response to peaceful civil rights protests.

The "good faith" test, established by Moyer v. Peabody, provided broad powers to state officials during martial law. This allowed them to declare martial law and use the military unilaterally, escaping judicial review. However, in 1932, the Court abandoned the "good faith" test in Sterling v. Constantin, replacing it with the "direct relation" test. This test examines whether actions taken during martial law are directly related to its purposes.

In the context of the coronavirus pandemic, the activation of the National Guard and the imposition of stay-at-home orders led to rumors of a national lockdown or martial law. However, state and federal authorities repeatedly debunked these claims, emphasizing that the National Guard was distributing food and medical supplies rather than enforcing a military lockdown.

National Guard units and their role

The National Guard is a state-based militia, authorised by the US Constitution. The Constitution distinguishes "militias", which are state entities, from "troops", which are unlawful for states to maintain without Congressional approval. The National Guard has a dual role as a state and federal reserve force.

The National Guard can be activated by the state governor, who has the power to impose martial law within the borders of the state. The US President and Congress also have the power to impose martial law. Typically, the state bears the full cost of activation unless the governor requests reimbursement.

During the coronavirus pandemic, National Guard units were activated in more than half of US states. They helped to transport medical supplies, distribute food, and direct traffic at drive-through testing sites. They also helped to protect state property or critical supply lines, and assembled and manned temporary hospitals.

The activation of the National Guard during the pandemic caused rumours of a national lockdown or martial law. However, these rumours were repeatedly debunked by state and federal authorities.

False information and panic-buying

The activation of the National Guard units across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic sparked rumours of a national lockdown or even martial law. Text messages and social media posts claiming that the National Guard would enforce a mandatory two-week quarantine circulated, causing panic-buying and rapid travel decisions. However, these rumours were false and repeatedly debunked by state and federal authorities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been marked by an abundance of misinformation, fuelled by social media and the novelty, rapid development, and unpredictability of the crisis. Fake news, or fabricated news stories presented as legitimate, can heighten negative behavioural responses such as irrational panic-buying and unsafe health practices. For example, misinformation led to the belief that ingesting disinfectant could protect against COVID-19, posing serious threats to consumers' health. The dissemination of misinformation during the pandemic has had drastic effects on manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, and e-commerce platforms worldwide.

Anxiety was found to be a significant factor contributing to panic-buying behaviour, with crisis-related information exposure prompting a sense of preparedness. The challenge of discerning accurate information from false news is made more difficult by the sheer volume of information available, leading to information overload. This overload can cause consumers to feel overwhelmed and confused, making them more susceptible to false information.

To combat the spread of misinformation, search and media companies like Google and Facebook have implemented measures such as placing information centres at the top of newsfeeds. Additionally, CEOs of large retail chains have directly communicated with consumers online to discourage panic-buying and hoarding. It is crucial for individuals to verify the information they receive and only share credible sources to prevent unnecessary panic and negative consequences.

Suspension of standard judicial processes

The imposition of martial law is an extreme measure, typically declared in response to invasion, rebellion, insurrection, riot, civil unrest, natural disaster, or other emergency situations. When martial law is in effect, the military assumes law enforcement duties, supplanting civilian authority and judicial processes.

Standard judicial processes may be suspended under martial law to expedite decision-making and punishment for perceived dissidents or lawbreakers. This suspension of regular judicial processes can signal a shift towards more authoritarian control. The suspension of habeas corpus, or the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, is often a precursor to the declaration of martial law.

In the United States, the imposition of martial law is subject to constitutional constraints. Both the President and Congress have the power to impose martial law, but it is limited by court decisions and legislative checks to prevent abuse of power. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed by Congress in 1878, prohibits US military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the activation of the National Guard in several US states sparked rumors of a national lockdown or martial law. However, federal and state authorities repeatedly debunked these claims, emphasizing that the National Guard was only assisting with distributing food and medical supplies.

In conclusion, while the coronavirus pandemic caused anxiety and misinformation about the potential imposition of martial law, there were no indications that standard judicial processes would be suspended. The activation of the National Guard was not indicative of an impending declaration of martial law, and authorities worked to dispel rumors and reassure the public.

Frequently asked questions