Martial Law: Can The Federal Government Impose It?

The question of whether the federal government can declare martial law is a complex one. While it has been declared over 60 times in US history, the term martial law lacks a clear definition and the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on the federal government's ability to impose it. The Constitution does not grant the president the power to declare martial law, and Congress may be the only branch that can legally do so. However, the president has the authority to deploy the military in certain situations, and some scholars argue that the president has the executive power to declare martial law, especially in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act also impact the president's ability to declare martial law, with the former allowing for the deployment of military forces to address rebellions and the latter preventing the military from participating in civilian law enforcement.

The US President's power to declare martial law

The US Constitution does not define martial law, nor does it specify who can declare it. While the Supreme Court has ruled that states can declare martial law, it has never explicitly ruled that the US President can. Several presidents throughout history have declared martial law, but it is unclear whether they had the authority to do so.

Some scholars argue that the President has the executive power to declare martial law. Others believe that the President requires congressional authorization to impose martial law in a civilian area. Congress may be the only branch of the US government with the authority to declare martial law, and the President can only act with its approval. The US Constitution does not give the President "conclusive and preclusive" authority over the domestic use of the military and instead vests power in the legislative branch. Therefore, a unilateral declaration of martial law by the President would likely not survive a legal challenge.

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, prevents the US military from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. It strengthens the separation of powers between Congress and the President and bolsters federalism. However, the Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the President to deploy military forces to quell rebellions within the US and assist local law enforcement in dealing with domestic violence.

In certain circumstances, martial law has been declared in the United States. For example, during the War of 1812, General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans due to concerns about potential disloyalty and panic among residents. In 1863, President Lincoln imposed Congressionally authorized martial law on Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, suspending habeas corpus and civil rights. 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.

US Congress's power to declare martial law

The US Constitution does not define martial law and does not specify who can declare it. However, the US Congress has the power to impose martial law, within certain constraints. Congress has the power to authorise a presidential declaration of martial law, although this has not been conclusively decided.

Congress has the power to declare martial law because it has authority over the militia. Congress also has several war powers that act as checks on the commander-in-chief. For example, Congress has the power to impeach, and it has legislative powers to authorise military action.

Congress has also enacted laws that limit the president's ability to declare martial law. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids US military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to use the military for domestic disturbance, terrorism, insurrection, etc. However, this Act has been amended several times, and its current form is unclear.

In addition to Congress, state officials and governors have the power to declare martial law within their states. However, their actions must abide by the US Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

The US President also has the power to impose martial law, within certain constraints. However, the president cannot act against Congress's wishes in this area because the Constitution does not give the president conclusive authority over the domestic use of the military. A unilateral declaration of martial law by the president would likely not survive a legal challenge.

State officials' power to declare martial law

The US Constitution does not define martial law and does not specify who can declare it. However, it is generally accepted that state officials do have the power to declare martial law within their state borders. State governors have imposed or approved declarations of martial law throughout American history, and almost all state constitutions allow the state governor or legislature to impose it.

When martial law is declared, local laws, civil authority, and sometimes local judiciaries are suspended, and the commanding officer substitutes temporary laws and military tribunals. This gives the military commander virtually unlimited authority to govern an area.

State officials have declared martial law in response to violent civil unrest, natural disasters, and, more frequently, to break labor strikes on behalf of business interests. For example, in 1903, Colorado Governor James Peabody declared martial law in Cripple Creek and Telluride to break a peaceful strike by the Western Federation of Miners. The Colorado National Guard conducted mass arrests of striking workers.

The Supreme Court has never specifically ruled that the president or federal government can declare martial law, and it has never been conclusively decided whether Congress can authorize a presidential declaration of martial law. However, the modern interpretation of the Constitution allows the president and state officials to declare "degrees of martial law in specific circumstances."

Martial law and the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether the President or federal government can declare martial law. The Constitution does not define martial law and does not specify who can declare it. While the Supreme Court has held that states can declare martial law, it has never specifically affirmed the President's ability to do so. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the President can legally declare martial law.

The Supreme Court's 1952 ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer provides a framework for evaluating executive power and would likely be used by a court to determine whether a presidential declaration of martial law exceeded that authority. According to Youngstown, when Congress has passed a statute on an issue, the President cannot act against Congress's will unless the Constitution grants the President "conclusive and preclusive" power in that area.

The Supreme Court has implied that the federal government may declare martial law, but it has never explicitly stated this. The Court has also never clarified whether the President could unilaterally declare martial law or if Congress's authorization would be required. The Court's statements on these matters have been inconsistent, and many legal questions remain unanswered.

The Supreme Court has ruled on specific cases involving martial law. For example, in Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866), the Court ruled that President Lincoln's imposition of martial law by suspending habeas corpus was unconstitutional in areas where local courts were still operational. Additionally, in 1845, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution applied in full in Hawaii, which was then a territory, and that the legality of martial law there should be assessed accordingly.

Martial law and the US Constitution

The US Constitution does not define martial law, nor does it specify who can declare it. While the Supreme Court has held that states can declare martial law, it has never explicitly ruled that the president or federal government can. The Constitution also does not grant the president the power to deploy the military domestically, instead vesting this authority largely in the legislative branch. Thus, a unilateral declaration of martial law by the president would likely be deemed unconstitutional.

Throughout American history, the federal and state governments have declared martial law over 60 times. Several presidents have imposed or approved declarations of martial law, including President Lincoln, who imposed Congressionally authorized martial law on Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri during the Civil War. However, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and civil rights, the Supreme Court ruled that his imposition of martial law was unconstitutional in areas where local courts were still functioning.

According to national security law scholar Joseph Nunn, martial law represents a "dramatic departure from normal practice" in the US. It involves the suspension of local laws, civil authority, and sometimes the local judiciary, with a military commander assuming virtually unlimited authority to govern an area. While the president can call on the military to assist local governments after a natural disaster, federal laws typically prevent the military from acting within the country.

There are two competing theories regarding the source of the power to declare martial law. One theory suggests that martial law arises from the government's right, power, and/or duty to "maintain public order" and keep the peace. The other theory posits that martial law is derived from the Constitution's enumerated war powers granted to the legislative and executive branches, giving both Congress and the president the authority to declare it. However, some scholars argue that Congress might be the only governmental branch that can legally declare martial law, with the president requiring congressional authorization to impose it.

The lack of clarity surrounding martial law and the president's authority to declare it is due to sparse, confusing, and inconsistent legal precedent. The Supreme Court's limited rulings on the matter have been vague and sometimes contradictory. While the Court has implied that the federal government can declare martial law, it has never explicitly stated this, nor has it clarified whether congressional authorization is required. This ambiguity has resulted in ongoing uncertainty about the legality of presidential declarations of martial law.

Frequently asked questions