What are historical cases where soldiers were prosecuted for following orders later deemed unlawful?

1. Nuremberg’s watershed: ending the absolute “just-following-orders” defense

The Nuremberg tribunals after World War II set the global precedent that obedience to superiors is not an automatic defense for war crimes; prosecutors and practitioners have since referred to attempts to rely on obedience as the “Nuremberg defense,” and commentators trace later U.S. prosecutions directly to that doctrine ^{[1] [4]}. That international posture underlies later rules and treaties that make individuals criminally responsible for manifestly illegal acts even when ordered by superiors ^[4].

2. U.S. military law: the duty to obey lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts‑Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders; the law draws a distinction between routine commands (presumed lawful) and “patently” or “manifestly” illegal ones such as orders to kill civilians or torture ^{[3] [2] [5]}. Military guidance and commentators emphasize that the threshold for refusing an order is narrow — an order must be unmistakably criminal on its face — and that refusals carry real disciplinary risk unless the illegality is clear ^{[6] [5]}.

3. Famous U.S. prosecutions: My Lai and Lt. William Calley

The My Lai massacre prosecution of Lt. William Calley is the most-cited U.S. example of a service member convicted for following orders that were later deemed unlawful; his defense—that he was obeying his commander—was explicitly linked in coverage and scholarship to the Nuremberg principle that obedience is not an absolute shield ^{[1] [7]}. Coverage and legal FAQs cite Calley repeatedly as precedent that soldiers may be held accountable for killing unarmed civilians even if they claim they were carrying out superior orders ^{[1] [8]}.

4. Other historical examples and international practice

Beyond Calley and Nuremberg, reporting and reference materials list additional cases where individuals were tried for acts done under orders, and courts have developed concepts like “blatantly illegal” or “manifestly illegal” orders (e.g., Israeli Kafr Qasim jurisprudence and various postwar tribunal cases) ^{[4] [8]}. Wikipedia and legal summaries document cases ranging from executions of prisoners to deportations tried in national courts and tribunals, sometimes with acquittals or nuanced outcomes — underscoring that fact patterns and legal standards matter ^[4].

5. How courts and military judges treat the question of an order’s lawfulness

Authorities say the lawfulness of an order is typically a legal question for a judge to decide, often only resolved after a servicemember obeys or refuses and the case reaches court‑martial or tribunal ^{[8] [3]}. Practical guidance warns troops that many operational or policy directives, even if later invalidated, will not be “obviously” unlawful in the moment — making preemptive disobedience legally risky without clear manifest illegality ^{[9] [10]}.

6. Contemporary debate: legal principle versus institutional risks

Recent reporting shows a sharp contemporary debate: some lawmakers and legal commentators stress the obligation and right to refuse unlawful orders and warn troops their oath is to the Constitution not an individual ^{[11] [12]}. Military-focused outlets and practitioners caution that public admonitions from politicians can confuse troops about the narrow legal standard and may risk undermining the chain of command unless conveyed with legal context and processes ^{[12] [6]}.

7. Limits of available reporting and open questions

Available sources document landmark examples (Nuremberg, My Lai) and outline the UCMJ standard, but they do not provide a comprehensive catalogue of every historical prosecution worldwide for following orders; nor do they supply exhaustive case law analysis here — such gaps mean readers should consult primary case law or specialized legal histories for a full inventory ^{[1] [8] [4]}. Additionally, sources note variation in how different courts and nations define “manifest” unlawfulness, so outcomes can diverge by jurisdiction and fact pattern ^{[4] [10]}.

Bottom line

Legal doctrine since Nuremberg makes clear that following orders is not an automatic defense for serious crimes, and U.S. military law requires disobedience only where an order is manifestly unlawful — a high but real threshold that has produced notable prosecutions such as My Lai ^{[1] [2] [8]}. Contemporary disagreements are less about the existence of the duty than about how to communicate and apply it in messy operational and political contexts ^{[12] [11]}.