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.
Which landmark cases cleared soldiers who claimed they were following illegal orders and why?
Executive summary
Historic U.S. and international reporting in the current sources does not list a simple roll-call of “landmark” cases that systematically cleared soldiers who claimed they were following illegal orders; instead, recent coverage and legal commentary emphasize that servicemembers are generally bound to disobey manifestly unlawful commands and that “following orders” is not a blanket defense [1] [2]. Contemporary debate — triggered by a November 2025 video urging troops to refuse illegal orders and by court rulings about specific deployments — shows tension between lawful obedience and the duty to refuse manifestly illegal commands [3] [4].
1. What the law says: no automatic exoneration for “I was following orders”
U.S. military law requires service members to obey lawful orders but also obliges them to refuse unlawful ones; courts and commentators repeatedly say that following an unlawful order is not a per se defense and that a soldier can be held criminally liable if the order was “manifestly unlawful” and the subordinate knew or should have known [1] [2] [5]. Legal guides and surveys presented in recent reporting stress the distinction — obedience is required for lawful orders, but unlawful orders (e.g., ordering the killing of unarmed civilians) must be refused [6] [5].
2. Historical precedent often rejects “just following orders” as a full defense
Contemporary summaries in the press recall that U.S. military tribunals and appeals courts have long limited the “Nuremberg defense”: victims of illegal orders may seek mitigation but courts have upheld prosecutions when the unlawfulness was clear. For example, reporting notes a 1969 Court of Military Appeals decision during the Vietnam War in which a soldier claiming he followed orders was not absolved [1]. The sources do not provide a comprehensive list of specific landmark cases that resulted in full exoneration based solely on following orders — available sources do not mention a set of such landmark exoneration cases.
3. Recent cases and rulings that shape the current conversation
Contemporary coverage highlights litigation and rulings with implications for whether orders can be legally followed. For instance, a federal judge’s September 2, 2025 ruling that a large deployment of Guard and active-duty forces violated the Posse Comitatus Act is cited in legal commentary as a decision that complicates the lawfulness of certain orders and may influence service members’ choices about obedience absent clear guidance [4]. The reporting does not say that that ruling “cleared soldiers” who followed such orders; rather, commentators say it strengthens arguments that certain deployments were unlawful and that troops need definitive guidance before refusing [4].
4. Who interprets legality — commanders, military judges, or courts?
Sources underline that in practice the military judiciary and legal advisers play central roles in determining order legality: military judges at courts-martial and Judge Advocates interpret whether an order was lawful or “patently illegal,” and servicemembers are urged to seek counsel when in doubt unless the unlawfulness is obvious [6] [7] [2]. Commentators warn, however, that quick battlefield judgments are difficult; only “manifestly unlawful” orders (obviously criminal) create a safe harbor for immediate refusal [6] [4].
5. Civic and political context: how public statements shape perceptions
A round of high-profile political statements in November 2025 — Democratic lawmakers urging troops to refuse illegal orders and President Trump calling that “seditious” — has intensified public debate about the duty to disobey [8] [9]. News outlets and military analysts flagged that the lawmakers’ messaging was legally accurate in principle but criticized as vague by some military commentators because it did not identify specific orders or give concrete legal thresholds [3] [2].
6. Practical guidance now offered to service members
Legal FAQs and military-defense practitioners in the sources advise service members: if an order is clearly illegal (manifestly violates the Constitution, criminal law, or the Geneva Conventions), refuse it; if you have doubt, seek legal counsel up the chain of command; and recognize the risk that disobeying a lawful order can carry discipline [6] [7] [2]. Surveys of troops show widespread understanding of this duty but also highlight the cultural and practical difficulty of disobedience in hierarchical settings [5] [10].
Conclusion — what the sources support and what they don’t
The available sources support the legal principle that following a manifestly illegal order is not a defense and that troops must refuse such commands; they document recent legal rulings and political controversy that sharpen the issue [1] [4] [3]. The sources do not provide a neat list of “landmark cases that cleared soldiers” on the basis they were following illegal orders — available sources do not mention such a catalogue — and instead show that outcomes turn on the facts, the clarity of unlawfulness, and judicial or military-legal determinations [1] [4].