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.
How does refusal to follow an unlawful order get evaluated in courts-martial?
Executive summary
Courts-martial treat orders as presumptively lawful; an order is unlawful only if it clearly violates the Constitution, U.S. law, military regulations, or is beyond the issuer’s authority, and whether an order is lawful is a legal question for a military judge [1]. Service members can be punished for obeying orders they knew or a “person of ordinary sense and understanding” would have known to be unlawful, and refusing an order raises complex factual and legal issues that are often resolved only after prosecution [2] [1].
1. How the system frames “lawful” vs. “unlawful” orders
The Rules for Courts‑Martial and the Manual for Courts‑Martial set a legal framework that presumes orders are lawful unless they “are contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it,” meaning the starting point in any dispute is legality by default rather than illegality [1] [2]. The Rules explicitly carve out “patently illegal” or “manifestly unlawful” orders — for example, those directing crimes or atrocities — as exceptions to that presumption [1].
2. Who decides legality: fact versus law in court-martial practice
Under current military procedure, the question of whether an order is lawful is a question of law for the military judge to decide, often only after a service member has either obeyed or refused and the matter reaches a court‑martial or tribunal [1]. That means a soldier’s on-the-spot assessment (what they reasonably believed) can become evidence in later proceedings, but ultimate legal determination typically awaits formal adjudication [1].
3. The criminal risk of obeying an unlawful order — and of refusing a lawful one
The Uniform Code of Military Justice punishes failure to obey lawful orders (Article 92), and the Manual underscores that service members can be punished for following orders they knew to be unlawful or that a person of ordinary sense would have recognized as unlawful [2] [3]. Conversely, refusal to follow an order that a court later deems lawful can itself be punished, so service members face contrasting legal peril depending on how a judge or court resolves the lawfulness question [2] [3].
4. What “patently illegal” has meant in past practice
Practical guidance and past cases illustrate that “patently illegal” has typically been applied to orders to commit clearly criminal acts or atrocities (for example, orders to kill unarmed civilians), not to ambiguous operational directives; prior court rulings show that context matters and that only some extreme orders meet the threshold of being manifestly unlawful [1]. Legal commentators and defense advocates emphasize the rarity and legal complexity of successfully invoking the manifestly unlawful defense in active operations [2] [1].
5. Advice channels and the role of military lawyers
When service members have doubts, military law experts and commentators advise seeking legal advice within the chain of command or legal office, because uncertainty about an order’s lawfulness is itself consequential — if legal counsel concludes an order is unlawful, following that advice can be protective; if not, refusal risks discipline [4]. The Manual and related guidance support the idea that legality is often something to be clarified with counsel rather than resolved by unilateral on-the-spot judgments [1] [4].
6. Institutional change and ongoing rulemaking
The Manual for Courts‑Martial is periodically reviewed and amended; DoD sought public comment on proposed MCM amendments in 2025, showing the rules governing orders and courts‑martial remain subject to formal revision and public input [5] [6]. That process can affect how the legal definitions and procedures around unlawful orders are applied going forward [5].
7. Practical tension and competing priorities
The system is designed to balance obedience, unit cohesion, and the rule of law: it presumes obedience but requires refusal of criminal orders, yet places the legal determination after the fact in many cases, creating a difficult practical choice for troops under pressure [2] [1]. Advocates urging troops to refuse clearly illegal orders highlight the moral and legal imperative, while military rules and Article 92 warn that refusing an order later judged lawful carries sanctions, a tension reflected in recent public debates and guidance [3] [4].
Limitations and closing note: Available sources summarize the MCM, RCMs, UCMJ and commentary but do not offer a step‑by‑step template for every factual scenario; specific outcomes depend on the facts, the advice obtained at the time, and the military judge’s later legal ruling [1] [2].