What leading U.S. cases set precedent for the 'manifestly illegal' test for service members?

1. What the supplied reporting covers — and what it does not

The documents in your search results center on recent Supreme Court and appellate litigation — for example, the 2025 cases about presidential tariff authority, which the Supreme Court heard on November 5, 2025 ^{[1] [2] [4]} — and a Supreme Court grant on review of a Ninth Circuit asylum decision ^[3]. None of the items in the returned list address military law precedents, courts‑martial doctrine, or a “manifestly illegal” standard for service members’ conduct or refusals to follow orders; the phrase “manifestly illegal” as a test for service members is not discussed in these items (available sources do not mention that test) ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

2. Why that gap matters for your query

When asking about leading U.S. cases that set precedent for a “manifestly illegal” test for service members, you are likely seeking decisions from military appellate courts (e.g., Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces), federal circuit courts, or the Supreme Court applying military‑law principles. The available results are mainstream civilian appellate and Supreme Court coverage and do not include military‑justice rulings or analyses; therefore the current results cannot support authoritative citation of precedents on that topic (available sources do not mention military precedents on this test) ^{[5] [6]}.

3. What to look for next — recommended judicial sources and terms

To find the cases you want, search primary military law reporters and databases (e.g., decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, service courts of criminal appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s military law docket). Useful search terms include “manifestly illegal order,” “illegal order military,” “refusal to obey unlawful order case,” and case names often cited in scholarship (for example, searches for historical decisions about obedience and unlawful orders). The current search results do not point to those materials; they instead point to civilian federal litigation from 2025 ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Alternative viewpoints and potential sources of confusion

Civilian courts and military courts sometimes use different language and standards. Media coverage in the results focuses on separation‑of‑powers and executive authority (tariffs, immigration enforcement) and thus may conflate or overshadow military‑law topics if you rely on general press searches ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Because the supplied sources are concentrated on high‑profile executive‑power litigation in 2025, you should not infer that those items bear on the “manifestly illegal” military test; the sources themselves do not make that link (available sources do not make that link) ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Short action plan to get authoritative precedent

• Search specialized legal databases (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Justia’s military pages) and military law treatises for phrases like “manifestly illegal order” and “unlawful order” — the supplied Justia Supreme Court list does not include military‑law holdings relevant to your query ^[7].
• Look up Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decisions, and service courts of criminal appeals for the phrase; these are the likely places leading precedents appear (available sources do not include CAAF decisions in the set you provided) ^{[5] [6]}.
• If you want, I can repeat a targeted search confined to military‑justice sources or analyze specific case names you suspect are relevant; current results do not contain the needed material (available sources do not contain those materials) (p1_s1–^[8]5).

Limitations: This analysis uses only the set of search results you supplied; I cannot cite or invent specific military cases because none of the included sources address the “manifestly illegal” test for service members (available sources do not mention those cases) (p1_s1–^[8]5).