Martial Law: Who Declares And When?

The concept of martial law in the United States is complex and has no established definition. It involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked during war, rebellion, or natural disaster. While the U.S. Constitution does not define or specify who can declare martial law, state officials, including governors, do have the power to declare it within their states, subject to federal laws and the U.S. Constitution. The authority to declare martial law varies across states, with some states granting this power to the governor or legislature. The federal government, including the President and Congress, also has the power to impose martial law, but it is subject to judicial review and constitutional constraints.

Martial law has been declared over 60 times in US history

The Supreme Court has held that individual states have the power to declare martial law, and such a declaration is valid if it is authorised by the constitution or laws of the state. States have declared martial law far more frequently than the federal government. Governors have declared martial law more often than the federal government, and President Trump was reported to be considering declaring it following the Capitol riot.

Martial law has been declared for various reasons, including war or invasion, domestic war or insurrection, riot or civil unrest, labour dispute, natural disaster, and other reasons. Notable examples of martial law in US history include Boston in 1774, in response to the Boston Tea Party, and Virginia in 1775, when Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, issued a proclamation declaring martial law. During the American Revolutionary Period, British authorities imposed martial law in several instances to suppress colonial resistance and maintain control.

In more recent times, martial law was declared in West Virginia during the West Virginia Coal Wars (1920-1921), and in Hawaii from 1941 to 1944, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It's important to note that even under martial law, state officials are bound by the US Constitution and valid federal laws, and individuals can challenge a state declaration of martial law in federal court.

The US President can declare martial law

Martial law involves the military taking over from civilian authorities and enforcing their own rules. It is usually invoked in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster, and is considered a dramatic departure from normal practice in the United States. The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the power to declare martial law, and the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled that the president can declare it. However, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 both impact the president's ability to declare martial law. The former prevents the US military from participating in civilian law enforcement activities, while the latter allows the president to deploy military forces to put down rebellions and help local law enforcement deal with domestic violence.

Some scholars believe that the president has the executive power to declare martial law, while others argue that congressional authorization is required. Congress may be the only governmental branch that can legally declare martial law, and the president can only act according to its actions. Additionally, the president has ample authority under current law to deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement.

Throughout history, several presidents have declared martial law to varying degrees. For example, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1861, and in response to the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, Chicago Mayor Roswell B. Mason declared martial law and placed General Philip Sheridan in charge of the city.

State governors can impose martial law

The power to impose martial law is not explicitly granted by the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court has never ruled that the President or federal government can declare it. However, nearly every state has a constitutional provision authorizing the governor or legislature to impose it. This power is justified by the government's duty to maintain public order and keep the peace.

Throughout history, martial law has been imposed at least 68 times in the United States, mostly by state and local officials. Examples include the imposition of martial law in Boston in 1774 by British authorities to suppress colonial resistance, and the declaration of martial law in Chicago by Mayor Roswell B. Mason in 1871 in response to the Great Chicago Fire. More recently, in 1963, Maryland declared martial law during the Civil Rights Movement.

State declarations of martial law are subject to judicial review, and individuals can challenge them by seeking injunctive relief in federal court. State officials must abide by the U.S. Constitution and valid federal laws even when martial law is in effect.

Martial law suspends civil authority

Martial law involves 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 deemed ineffective.

In the United States, martial law has been declared more than 60 times, mostly by state and local officials. While the exact scope and limits of martial law are unclear due to sparse and confusing legal precedents, it is known that martial law suspends civil authority and the ordinary administration of justice. The military commander of an area under martial law has virtually unlimited authority to make and enforce laws.

Although the president lacks the authority to declare martial law unilaterally, Congress might be able to authorize a presidential declaration. State officials, on the other hand, do have the power to declare martial law, but their actions must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

The right of habeas corpus, which is the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment, is closely tied to the concept of martial law in the United States. While martial law can suspend this right, individuals can still challenge a state declaration of martial law by seeking injunctive relief in federal court and petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus if detained.

Martial law is justifiable in emergencies

Martial law is a complex and unsettled concept with no established definition. It involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked in times of war, rebellion, civil unrest, natural disasters, or other emergencies. While it has been declared more than 60 times in US history, mostly by state and local officials, the exact scope and limits of martial law remain unclear due to sparse and confusing legal precedents.

That being said, martial law is justifiable in emergencies for several reasons. Firstly, it can be a necessary tool for governments to maintain order and stability in times of crisis. For example, in the case of a natural disaster or civil unrest, civilian authorities may be overwhelmed or unable to function effectively, requiring the intervention of the military to restore order and ensure the safety of the population.

Secondly, martial law can be used to protect constitutional rights and ensure public safety. While it may involve the suspension of certain civil liberties, it is still bound by the US Constitution and valid federal laws. This means that even under martial law, individuals retain their constitutional rights, and state declarations of martial law can be challenged in federal court.

Additionally, martial law can be a crucial tool for states to defend themselves against external threats or invasions. In the case of a foreign attack or domestic violence, the federal government has the authority to act unilaterally and declare martial law to protect the affected state. This was seen in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, where martial law was implemented to maintain order and security.

Furthermore, martial law can be justified in emergencies when civilian authorities have ceased to function or become ineffective. In such cases, the military commander of an area has unlimited authority to make and enforce laws, filling the vacuum left by ineffective civilian governance. This was the case in Bangladesh in the late 1970s after Mujib was assassinated, where martial law was declared to maintain stability until a new civilian government could be established.

Finally, martial law can be a necessary measure to counter resistance to federal decrees and ensure compliance with the law. For example, in the Southern United States, martial law was declared on five occasions to counter resistance to federal desegregation decrees, demonstrating the use of martial law to enforce federal authority and uphold the rule of law.

In conclusion, while martial law may infringe upon certain civil liberties, it is justifiable in emergencies as a tool for governments to maintain order, protect constitutional rights, defend against external threats, fill the vacuum left by ineffective civilian governance, and ensure compliance with federal decrees. However, given the complex and unsettled nature of martial law, further legislation is needed to clearly define its scope and limits.

Frequently asked questions