Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are historical cases where soldiers were prosecuted or exonerated for following illegal orders?
Executive summary
Historical precedent shows that soldiers have sometimes been prosecuted for following orders deemed illegal and, in other times, have been exonerated or spared full liability when courts found the legality unclear. The most-cited U.S. example is Lt. William L. Calley’s conviction for his role in the My Lai massacre — a case that established that “just following orders” is not a blanket defense [1] [2]. Military law and scholarship emphasize that only “patently illegal” orders (those any reasonable person would recognize as unlawful) can be safely disobeyed without risking prosecution [3] [4].
1. The headline case: My Lai and Lt. William Calley — accountability for manifestly illegal orders
The My Lai massacre and Lt. William Calley’s subsequent prosecution remain the touchstone in U.S. practice: Calley was convicted for leading killings of Vietnamese civilians, and courts rejected a defense that obedience insulated subordinates from responsibility — demonstrating that following an order to slaughter civilians is criminal [1] [2]. Legal commentators and military analyses treat My Lai as showing that carrying out manifestly illegal orders, even in combat, produces individual criminal accountability [2] [5].
2. The Nuremberg legacy and the limits of the “I was following orders” defense
Post‑World War II Nuremberg trials decisively undercut the idea that superior orders automatically excuse criminal conduct; senior Nazi defendants who used that defense were not absolved, and U.S. courts and military doctrine have repeatedly cited that rejection when explaining that subordinates may face liability [6] [7] [8]. Contemporary reporting and legal guides restate that following an order alone is not a defense, echoing the Nuremberg principle [7] [2].
3. Where exoneration or acquittal has occurred — murkier cases and procedural outcomes
Available sources document cases where orders or prosecutions produced mixed results rather than clear exonerations. For example, refusals to deploy (e.g., Lt. Ehren Watada) challenged the legality of entire wars; Watada’s case produced a mistrial and highlighted how courts treat deployment orders as non‑justiciable or insufficiently “patently illegal” to justify refusal [2] [5]. Reporting notes that some prosecutions fail or are limited when courts find ambiguity about whether an order was clearly illegal [3].
4. Doctrinal test: “Patently illegal” orders and the soldier’s duty to assess
Military law applies a practical standard: an order is unlawful to disobey only if it is “patently illegal” — that is, of a nature that a person of ordinary sense would know it to be illegal [3]. The UCMJ and appellate decisions place the judge (or military decisionmaker) in the role of ultimately deciding lawfulness; lower‑ranking personnel are expected to seek legal advice when feasible and to refuse only where illegality is obvious [4] [9] [3].
5. Domestic prosecutions, pardons, and political intervention — outcomes beyond legal doctrine
Sources show politics can shape outcomes: cases have ended with controversial executive actions such as pardons, which complicate the message about accountability. Discussion around more recent pardons and DOJ memos (for example, relating to lethal boat strikes) illustrates that legal determinations and prosecutorial choices — not just doctrine — determine whether service members face charges [1] [10]. Available sources do not mention specific recent exonerations beyond those contexts.
6. Practical guidance and institutional tensions for today's troops
Legal FAQs and defense analyses advise service members to consult military lawyers if they doubt an order’s lawfulness; they warn that disobeying a lawful order invites punishment and that following an unlawful order can produce criminal liability — a tension troops must navigate in the field [4] [11] [12]. Surveys and reporting indicate service members generally understand the duty to refuse illegal orders, but many real‑world situations fall into gray areas where risk remains [13] [3].
7. Competing perspectives and limitations in the record
Commentators who support clear public guidance to troops argue reminders about refusing illegal orders are accurate and necessary; critics warn that urging disobedience risks undermining discipline and can expose servicemembers to punishment if orders are later judged lawful [14] [15]. Scholarly sources caution the standard for lawful versus illegal is often fact‑specific, and available reporting shows courts and commanders, not rank‑and‑file troops, typically resolve those legal questions post hoc [9] [3].
Bottom line
U.S. legal precedent and military practice make clear: following a manifestly illegal order (for example, to kill unarmed civilians or to torture) does not shield a servicemember from prosecution, as shown by My Lai and later rulings [1] [2]. Conversely, many contested refusals occur in gray areas where courts have been reluctant to bless widespread disobedience; soldiers are counseled to seek legal advice and to weigh carefully whether an order is “patently illegal” before choosing to disobey [3] [4].