Martial Law: Executive Orders Explained

Martial law is a complex and ambiguous area of law, with no clear definition provided by the US Constitution. It generally refers to the temporary transfer of civilian authority to the military. While the US Constitution does not grant the President conclusive and preclusive authority to impose martial law, there is a modern interpretation that allows the President and state officials to declare degrees of martial law in certain situations. The President's ability to declare martial law is further restricted by federal laws such as the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the US military from engaging in civilian law enforcement. The Supreme Court has also ruled on the limits of executive power, but the precedent is inconsistent and sparse. Ultimately, the power to declare martial law rests with Congress, and the President's authority is dependent on their authorization.

The US Constitution does not give the president power over domestic use of the military

The US Constitution does not give the president power over the domestic use of the military. The Constitution does not define martial law and is silent on who can impose it. However, the president does not have the power to unilaterally impose martial law. The Constitution vests power in the legislative branch, and the president cannot act against Congress's wishes in this area. The president, as commander-in-chief, has broad authority to make decisions that affect the military branches, especially during wartime, including determining troop movements and developing combat strategies. However, the Constitution also gives Congress considerable powers to oversee the military. These powers include the ability to provide for the common defence, declare war, raise and support an army and navy, make rules and regulations for the military, and purchase land for military bases.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the US military from participating in civilian law enforcement activities and requires express authorisation from Congress before the military can be used in a domestic law enforcement capacity. This means that even if the president could declare martial law, they would still need Congress's approval to utilise the military domestically. The Insurrection Act and possibly Title 32 also give the president extensive authority to deploy the military domestically to perform law enforcement functions. However, this does not include the power to unilaterally impose martial law.

While the president has the authority to make decisions regarding the military, the Constitution's separation of powers ensures that Congress has a crucial role in overseeing the military and providing checks on the executive branch. This division of powers between the executive and legislative branches is designed to prevent the concentration of power in a single person or entity and protect against potential abuses of power. It is important to note that the law governing martial law is complex and unsettled, with varying definitions and interpretations. However, the Constitution's silence on martial law and the vesting of power in Congress suggest that the president does not have unilateral authority to impose it.

Some scholars argue that the president has the executive power to declare martial law, especially in extreme circumstances such as a rebellion or foreign invasion. However, others believe that congressional authorisation is necessary for the imposition of martial law in civilian areas. This debate highlights the complex nature of interpreting the Constitution and the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Ultimately, the power to declare martial law remains ambiguous, and a clear understanding of its scope and limits requires further legislation from Congress and state legislatures.

Congress has the power to regulate the domestic deployment of the military

The Constitution of the United States does not define martial law and is silent on who can impose it. While some scholars believe the president has the executive power to declare martial law, others argue that the president requires congressional authorization. This suggests that Congress may be the only governmental branch with the authority to declare martial law.

The Insurrection Act, and possibly Title 32, allow the president to deploy the military to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement activities whenever and wherever he chooses. However, this has been criticized as granting the president broad authority to deploy the military domestically without meaningful checks and balances. The exact scope and limits of martial law will remain unclear until Congress enacts new laws that better define them.

Congress has placed clear and wide-ranging restrictions on the president's ability to use the military domestically, and a presidential declaration of martial law would violate these rules. The Constitution does not grant the president "conclusive and preclusive" power over the issue of domestic military deployment but instead gives most of the relevant authority to Congress. As such, a unilateral declaration of martial law by the president would not survive a legal challenge.

Martial law can be validly established by supreme political authority in wartime

The US Constitution does not define martial law and is silent on who can impose it. However, the US President does not have the power to unilaterally impose martial law. The Constitution does not give the President "conclusive and preclusive" authority over the domestic use of the military, and instead, it explicitly vests power in the legislative branch. Thus, the President cannot act against Congress's wishes in this area.

The Supreme Court has held that only Congress can authorize the substitution of military tribunals for civil courts, and it can only do so during wartime. This was established in the case of Luther v. Borden (1849), where the Court held that state declarations of martial law were conclusive and not subject to judicial review. Additionally, in Moyer v. Peabody (1909), the Court held that the Governor's declaration of a state of insurrection was conclusive, and the plaintiff's argument that they had been deprived of liberty without due process of law was not upheld.

Martial law has been implemented nationally by a President during wartime on two occasions: by Abraham Lincoln in border states between the North and South during the Civil War, and by local military officials in Hawaii during World War II, which was later approved and expanded by Franklin Roosevelt's executive order. However, both of these declarations were challenged in court, and portions were ruled unconstitutional or too broadly applied.

While the President does not have unilateral power to impose martial law, the modern interpretation of the Constitution allows the President and state officials to declare "degrees of martial law in specific circumstances." This is supported by the fact that the Constitution's enumerated war powers give both Congress and the President some control over America's military forces. Thus, it can be argued that martial law can be validly established by supreme political authority in wartime, as long as it is done in accordance with congressional authorization and within the bounds of the Constitution.

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the US military from participating in civilian law enforcement

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted by Congress in 1878, prevents the US military from participating in civilian law enforcement. The act bars federal troops from taking part in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorised by law. The act embodies an American tradition that views military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to democracy and personal liberty. The term posse comitatus refers to a group of people mobilised by a sheriff to suppress lawlessness in a county. The act prohibits the use of soldiers instead of civilians for this purpose.

The Posse Comitatus Act is an important check on executive power, ensuring that the president cannot unilaterally impose martial law. Martial law occurs when the military assumes temporary control over various civilian authorities. While the US Constitution does not define martial law, it is generally accepted that the president does not have the power to unilaterally impose it. The Constitution vests power in the legislative branch, and any attempt by the president to impose martial law unilaterally would be subject to legal challenge.

The Insurrection Act is a notable exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. This law allows the president, with or without the state government's consent, to deploy the military to enforce federal law, suppress a rebellion, or protect civil rights within a state. However, the president still needs congressional authorisation to impose martial law in a civilian area. The exact scope and limits of martial law remain unclear, and new laws are needed to better define them.

While the Posse Comitatus Act generally prevents the US military from participating in civilian law enforcement, there have been instances where it has been evaded. For example, in 2020, the Trump administration deployed the DC National Guard to police protests in Washington, DC, and requested that state governors send their own Guard personnel to the city. While these out-of-state forces were nominally under their governors' control, they were ultimately taking orders from the president, effectively creating a federally controlled military force for civilian law enforcement while bypassing the Posse Comitatus Act.

Martial law has been declared over 60 times in US history

The United States Constitution does not define martial law, nor does it specify who can impose it. However, martial law has been declared over 60 times in US history, with some sources citing 68 instances. The power to declare martial law is generally believed to lie with the president and state officials, who can declare "degrees of martial law in specific circumstances."

The president's authority to declare martial law is a contentious issue. While some scholars argue that the president has the executive power to declare martial law, others contend that congressional authorization is necessary. The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, prohibits the US military from engaging in civilian law enforcement activities without congressional approval, further complicating the president's ability to unilaterally impose martial law.

Throughout history, martial law has been declared in the US for various reasons. These include war or invasion, domestic war or insurrection, riot or civil unrest, labour disputes, natural disasters, and other reasons. Notable examples include the Battle of New Orleans in 1814, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, the Omaha race riot of 1919, and the West Virginia Coal Wars from 1920 to 1921.

The Supreme Court's rulings on martial law are sparse and inconsistent, leaving the exact scope and limits of martial law unclear. While the president has extensive authority to deploy the military domestically, the power to declare martial law explicitly rests with Congress, according to some interpretations of the Constitution. This interpretation asserts that the president cannot act against Congress's wishes in this area.

Frequently asked questions