The Constitution of the United States does not contain a martial law provision.
Posted by The Briefing with Jen Psaki, Checked
- Sources
- 5 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 90%
The Briefing with Jen PsakiSep 24, 2026
The claim matches the post's own wording and is supported: multiple sources state the Constitution does not mention or define martial law, including a quoted 1946 Supreme Court statement. The Congress.gov annotation notes courts have recognized wartime martial law as an implied power, which is a matter of interpretation rather than a constitutional provision.
A guest makes this claim. Listeners heard it, so it counts against the post, and on the guest's own record.
What was said
… It does not allow him to do so. Let me ask you, just we don't know what he's going to do, but what are these Trump allies who are pushing him to declare a national emergency what are they missing about what his powers actually even would be? They're missing the fact that we don't have a martial law provision in the Constitution of the United States of America. Nobody can impose martial law. Only Congress can even suspend habeas corpus in an actual emergency, but there's no emergency. …
The Briefing with Jen Psaki · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. FactCheck.org quotes the U.S. Supreme Court (1946): 'The Constitution does not refer to martial law at all and no Act of Congress has defined the term.'[1]
Supports. The Brennan Center states that the Constitution does not mention martial law and that no act of Congress defines it.[5]
Supports. Snopes states that neither a federal statute nor the Constitution defines martial law, and PolitiFact describes martial law as a concept with no legal definition in the U.S.[2][3]
Supports. USConstitution.net states that martial law is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, though habeas corpus suspension and militia activation are addressed elsewhere in the text.[6]
Context. The Congress.gov Constitution Annotated says martial law can be validly established by supreme political authority in wartime, citing Luther v. Borden. This reflects judicial recognition of an implied power, not a textual martial law provision.[4]
Context. EBSCO describes the Supreme Court as having recognized martial law as an implicit element of the constitutional framework, which is consistent with the Constitution lacking an express provision.[7]
Sources
7 sources: 3 fact-checkers, 1 primary, 3 not rated
- 1Martial Law Isn’t ‘Imminent’ - FactCheck.orgfactcheck.org · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 2Is Martial Law 'Imminent' Before Biden's Inauguration?snopes.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 3Fact-checking claims about the Insurrection Act, martial law ...politifact.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 4Martial Law Generally | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congressconstitution.congress.gov · primary source · cited for: context
- 5Martial Law in the United States: Its Meaning, Its History ...brennancenter.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 6Constitutional Topic: Martial Lawusconstitution.net · not rated · cited for: supports
- 7Martial law and the Supreme Court | Law | Research Starters - EBSCOebsco.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post