Why Martial Law Is Not a Presidential Switch

Published on LinkedIn: February 10, 2026

Martial law is often spoken of as if it were a button a president can press.

Constitutionally, it has never worked that way.

American constitutional law has treated military rule over civilian life as an extraordinary departure, not a routine executive option. The premise is simple: civilian government does not yield to military authority merely because a crisis exists.

Historically, martial law has been recognized only in rare and localized circumstances where civilian courts are genuinely unable to operate. Even then, military authority has been understood as temporary, constrained, and subject to judicial review. It does not replace civil government wholesale, and it does not extinguish constitutional protections simply by proclamation.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized this boundary. Where courts are open and functioning, military power cannot displace civilian authority. The determination is not left to presidential discretion alone; it is a legal judgment, assessed by courts, based on concrete conditions.

This framework reflects a deeper constitutional commitment. Concentrating military and civil power in the same hands was viewed as a grave danger to liberty, especially during periods of unrest. The Constitution’s structure was designed to resist that concentration, not to enable it.

Martial law, in American constitutional tradition, is not a tool of convenience. It is a last resort — and one tightly confined by law.