The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a rarely invoked but deeply consequential piece of American legislation. It grants the President of the United States the authority to deploy federal forces, including regular military troops and federalized National Guard units, to suppress insurrections, enforce federal laws, or respond to domestic disorders when ordinary law enforcement proves insufficient. The Act stands as an exception to the longstanding principle that the military should not act as a domestic police force.
The origins of the law go back to the early Republic. Facing the possibility that Aaron Burr might foment rebellion or seize territory after his duel with Alexander Hamilton, President Thomas Jefferson sought explicit authority from Congress to deploy troops domestically when needed. Congress complied, and the Insurrection Act was signed into law on March 3, 1807. Over the years, the Act has been amended and expanded, especially during and after the Civil War, to include provisions for the protection of civil rights when state governments refuse to act. Today, its legal framework is codified in sections 251 through 255 of Title 10 of the United States Code.
Under the Act, the President may act under a few distinct scenarios. One scenario is when a state’s governor or legislature requests federal assistance to suppress an insurrection or rebellion within their borders. Another is when federal laws are being impeded and enforcement through judicial means is no longer practicable. A further provision allows federal forces to act when civil authority is unable or unwilling to protect constitutional rights of citizens, even over the objections of state authorities. In such cases, the President may use federal troops without a governor’s consent. The breadth and ambiguity of these provisions have long been a cause for debate and concern among constitutional scholars.
The enforcement of the Act was historically seen as a last resort. For much of the 19th century, it was used to quell rebellions, labor disputes, and insurrections—often in ways that favored federal authority or private interests rather than popular uprisings. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln relied on powers consistent with the logic of the Act to suppress rebellion in the Southern states. In the Reconstruction era, presidents used similar powers to enforce civil rights and counter violent opposition, particularly after Congress bolstered federal authority over recalcitrant states. In the 20th century, perhaps its most famous uses were during the civil rights era, when Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invoked its provisions to deploy troops to enforce school desegregation and court rulings in Southern states where local governments refused to comply.
Yet as powerful as the Act is, its use in modern times has been rare. The most recent invocation occurred in 1992, when President George H. W. Bush deployed federal troops and National Guard units in response to widespread riots in Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King beating case. California’s governor requested the assistance, and the federal forces intervened to restore order in a city overwhelmed by unrest. Since then, no President has invoked the Insurrection Act in full—even as occasional public discourse has surfaced about its potential use in times of crisis. That 1992 deployment remains the longest span in U.S. history without a domestic military invocation under this statute.
Because the Act allows the President broad discretion, courts historically have been reluctant to second-guess the decision to deploy troops. The Supreme Court long ago established, in Martin v. Mott (1827), that the determination of an exigency requiring the activation of the militia lies with the President and is “conclusive upon all other persons.” That said, courts can review the actions of troops once deployed, ensuring that constitutional rights are respected even under an invocation.
In recent years, as attention has focused on extreme civil unrest, protests, and friction between federal and state authority, talk of invoking the Insurrection Act has resurfaced. Legal scholars warn of the dangers: its vague triggers, immense executive power, and lack of built-in oversight risk undermining democratic norms if abused. Some argue it’s overdue for reform to clarify the conditions under which it may be used, impose time limits, and require congressional authorization or review. Others warn that changing it could unduly constrain necessary executive flexibility in genuine emergencies.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 occupies a paradoxical place in American governance. It is a tool of extraordinary power—one that the framers and subsequent Congresses designed not for frequent use, but as a last resort when civil order collapses. Its invocation carries heavy symbolic and constitutional weight: it signals that local institutions have failed. As America changes, with widening political divides and growing tension between federal and state authority, the question of whether or how to use the Insurrection Act remains deeply relevant—and deeply fraught.