What are historical examples of military being given illegal orders.

1. My Lai and Calley: the clearest U.S. precedent for “illegal orders”

The most cited U.S. historical example is the My Lai massacre, where U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of Vietnamese civilians; Lt. William L. Calley Jr. was court-martialed and convicted, and U.S. courts described the orders the soldiers claimed to follow as “palpably illegal,” establishing that following manifestly unlawful commands is not a defense ^{[4] [1] [2]}.

2. Other high-profile abuses used as shorthand for unlawful orders

Commentators and legal advisers frequently invoke cases such as Abu Ghraib, Maywand District murders, and other scandals when discussing unlawful orders—these episodes are used to illustrate that following orders does not absolve individual culpability when the conduct amounts to crimes under domestic or international law ^[5].

3. Nuremberg/Tokyo and the international principle of individual responsibility

At the international level, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials set the precedent that “just following orders” does not automatically absolve commanders or subordinates for war crimes; legal scholars and some commentators cite those trials when arguing that senior leaders and those who execute manifestly illegal policies can be held responsible ^[6].

4. The legal standard: “manifestly” or “patently” illegal orders

U.S. military law and the Manual for Courts-Martial treat the lawfulness of an order as a legal question normally decided later by judges—orders that direct crimes (e.g., killing unarmed civilians) are “patently illegal” and must be refused, but many orders fall into gray areas that are not clearly unlawful on their face ^{[2] [3] [7]}.

5. The practical dilemma for service members in real time

Multiple legal guides and reporting stress that service members face acute practical difficulties: refusing a lawful order can itself be punished, and figuring out lawfulness in the field is legally risky; counsel and command channels are usually recommended unless an order is clearly illegal—e.g., an order to fire on unarmed civilians ^{[8] [2] [3]}.

6. Recent political flashpoint: lawmakers’ video and debates over examples

In November 2025, six Democratic lawmakers urged troops to “refuse illegal orders,” prompting political backlash and calls for examples; critics said the lawmakers didn’t cite specific orders, while defenders noted existing cases and legal standards that already obligate troops not to follow unlawful commands ^{[9] [10] [11]}. Media outlets and the Pentagon responded by emphasizing both the duty to obey lawful orders and the duty to refuse manifestly unlawful ones ^{[12] [3]}.

7. Who decides legality—and when?

Available reporting highlights that the ultimate determination of an order’s lawfulness often comes later from military judges, courts-martial, or civilian courts; internal legal reviews (e.g., by judge advocates) and rules like the UCMJ inform decisions, but the assessment is usually retrospective and adjudicative rather than immediate ^{[2] [7] [3]}.

8. Lessons and competing perspectives

Legal experts and military commentators agree that manifest war crimes must be refused ^{[2] [1]}. Where experts disagree is how broadly to counsel troops and the public: some worry broad public exhortations to “refuse illegal orders” risk undermining discipline or creating confusion among enlisted ranks, while others argue clarifying constitutional and legal limits on orders is necessary to prevent abuses ^{[9] [13]}.

Limitations and gaps: available sources do not mention a comprehensive, authoritative list of every historical instance where U.S. troops were given orders later ruled illegal beyond the prominent cases cited above; much of the discussion in current reporting centers on landmark examples (My Lai/Calley), international precedents (Nuremberg), and recent political disputes over possible unlawful strikes and public messaging to the force ^{[4] [6] [14]}.