Martial law is often associated with authoritarian regimes and military dictatorships, where civilians are displaced by the military and all aspects of life are controlled by the armed forces. However, martial law has also been employed in the United States on at least 68 occasions throughout its history.

Despite its prevalence, martial law remains a poorly understood concept in American law. The Constitution does not mention it, nor is it defined by any act of Congress. This lack of clarity has led to inconsistent and vague Supreme Court precedents, which have been cited only a handful of times over the years.

One of the most famous cases involving martial law in the United States is that of Harry White, a stockbroker who was arrested and tried without a jury in Hawaii in 1942. At the time, Hawaii was under martial law following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The military governor had taken control of all aspects of life, including criminal justice, and the courts were closed.

White's case is instructive because it illustrates how martial law can be used to displace civilian authorities and impose military rule over a population. In his case, the military would not have been involved in his alleged crime - embezzlement of funds from a client - if he had been tried under civilian law.

Despite this, the Supreme Court has consistently held that martial law is a valid exercise of presidential power. However, there are limits to this authority. Congress may be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, but it has not conclusively done so.

Recent legal scholarship has shed light on the limitations of the president's authority under current law. One study concluded that under current law, the president lacks any authority to declare martial law. This conclusion is based on an analysis of Supreme Court precedents and general principles of constitutional law.

The authors of this report argue that the Supreme Court's decisions on martial law are inconsistent and vague. They also point out that the Constitution does not mention martial law, nor is it defined by any act of Congress. This lack of clarity has led to confusion among federal and state officials, who have declared martial law at least 68 times over the course of U.S. history.

In conclusion, while martial law may be a necessary tool in certain circumstances, its use should always be subject to careful scrutiny and oversight. The president's authority under current law is limited, and Congress may need to authorize any declaration of martial law. Furthermore, the concept of martial law remains poorly understood, and more research is needed to clarify its legal basis and limitations.

Martial law in united states