About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 [1] (December 23, 2025)

handle is hein.crs/govetbl0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional Research Service Informing the IegisIat~ve debate s~nce 191.4 0 Updated December 23, 2025 Defense Primer: President's Constitutional Authority with Regard to the Armed Forces Article 11, Section 2, Clause I The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.... Commander in Chief-Eary Supreme Court Cases The Constitution makes the President commander in chief of the Armed Forces but does not define exactly what powers he or she may exercise in that role. Nor does it explain the extent to which Congress, using its own constitutional powers, may influence how the President commands the Armed Forces. Separation-of-powers debates arise with some frequency over the exercise of military powers. Early in the nation's history, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 69, that the commander in chief power is nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy. In 1850 the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Page stated that the President's duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in-chief, the Court explained, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. In Little v. Barreme, Chief Justice Marshall recognized congressional war power while denying the exclusivity of presidential power. After Congress authorized limited hostilities with France, a U.S. vessel under orders from the President seized what its commander believed was a U.S. merchant ship carrying contrabandfrom a French port. Congress had, however, provided only for seizure of such vessels bound to French ports. The Court held that the President's orders exceeded the authority granted by Congress and were not to be given effect, even though they might have been valid in the absence of such legislation. In Bas v. Tingy, the Court looked to statute rather than plenary presidential power to uphold military conduct related to the limited war with France. In Talbot v. Seeman, the Court upheld as authorized by Congress a U.S. commander's capture of a neutral ship, holding, The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this enquiry. During the War of 1812, the Court recognized in Brown v. United States that the Constitution empowers Congress to authorize the confiscation of enemy property during wartime and that, absent such authorization, a seizure authorized by the President was void. In the Prize Cases, the Supreme Court sustained President Lincoln's blockade of southern ports in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session. Although Congress subsequently ratified the President's actions, making consideration of the constitutional basis of the President's action without congressional authorization unnecessary, the Court approved the blockade five to four as an exercise of presidential power alone. The Court found that a state of war existed as a fact and that, because the nation was under attack, the President was bound to act without waiting for any special legislative authority. This case is frequently cited in support of claims to greater presidential autonomy when the President acts as commander in chief. The Supreme Court has also suggested that the President has some independent authority to employ the Armed Forces, at least in the absence of contrary congressional action. In the 1890 case In re Neagle, the Supreme Court suggested, in dictum, that the President has the power to deploy the military abroad to protect or rescue persons with significant ties to the United States. Justice Miller approvingly described the Martin Koszta affair, in which an American naval ship intervened to prevent a lawful immigrant from being captured by an Austrian vessel despite the absence of clear statutory authorization. Presidentia Power over Foregn Affa Irs The expansion of presidential power related to war gained momentum in the twentieth century. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., the Supreme Court stated that the President, as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations, enjoys greater discretion exercising foreign affairs powers than when only domestic issues are involved. Congress had authorized the President to proclaim an arms embargo if he found such action might contribute to a peaceful resolution of the war between Paraguay and Bolivia. President Franklin Roosevelt issued such a proclamation, and Curtiss-Wright was indicted for violating the embargo. It challenged the statute, arguing that Congress had failed to elaborate standards adequate to guide the President's exercise of the delegated power. The Court found otherwise, reasoning that the power of the federal government related to external affairs is not one of enumerated powers but rather one of inherent powers. PresidentaL Uses of Force in Recent Decades Presidents from Truman to Trump have claimed to varying degrees that the President has independent authority to