The Constitution of the United States contains some provisions
restricting the jurisdiction of military authorities and
tribunals over controversies, which are not found in the
Constitutions of the States. It may well be that martial law has
for the United States a narrower meaning than it may possess in a
particular State.

The legislature of Rhode Island in 1842, during "Dorr's
Rebellion," by a Public Act put that State under martial law
until further order, or until its termination should be
proclaimed by the Governor. A squad of militia broke into the
house of a private citizen to arrest him as an abettor of Dorr,
and were afterwards sued in trespass before the civil courts.
The cause finally came before the Supreme Court of the United
States, where (one justice only dissenting) it was held that the
Act could not be pronounced an unjustifiable exercise of
legislative power under any provision of the federal
Constitution.[Footnote: Luther _v._ Borden, 7 Howard's
Reports, 1, 45.] Whether the courts of Rhode Island could have
taken a different view, under the fundamental laws of the State,
was not decided.[Footnote: _Ex parte_ Milligan, 4 Wallace's
Reports, 2, 129.]

On the other hand, there are States in which the Constitution
explicitly provides that "the military power shall always be held
in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed
by it."[Footnote: Constitution of Massachusetts, Declaration of
Rights, Art. 17. _Cf._ Constitution of Colorado, Art. 2,
Sec, 22.] It is a serious question whether, under such
provisions, a legislative or executive declaration of martial law