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 do U.S. courts assess unlawful military orders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
Executive summary
U.S. military law requires service members to obey lawful orders and to refuse unlawful ones; the key statutory standard is Article 92 of the UCMJ, which criminalizes failure to obey a lawful order while also allowing that an order is unlawful if it “is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States…or for some other reason is beyond the authority” of the issuer [1] [2]. Reporters and analysts emphasize that only “manifestly unlawful” orders clearly obligate refusal, and following such orders can produce criminal liability for the follower [3] [4].
1. What the law says: the UCMJ’s central rule
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes disobedience of a lawful order punishable; the Manual for Courts‑Martial explains an order remains lawful unless it violates the Constitution, federal law, or exceeds the issuing officer’s authority — which is the baseline used by courts and commanders when assessing contested orders [1] [2]. Legal commentary and practice guides reiterate that Article 92 prosecutions presuppose a lawful order and that an unlawful‑order defense is recognized when the order actually was unlawful [5].
2. The “manifestly unlawful” threshold courts use
Military practice and reporting stress that courts and the Manual for Courts‑Martial treat a narrow category of orders as so plainly illegal that a servicemember must refuse them — often described as “manifestly unlawful.” If an order directs clearly criminal conduct (e.g., murder, torture) a service member who obeys can be prosecuted; if the illegality is not obvious, a refusal risks an Article 92 charge for disobeying a lawful command [3] [4] [6].
3. How courts evaluate the follower’s knowledge and context
When courts assess unlawful‑order defenses they examine whether a person of “ordinary sense and understanding” would have known the order was unlawful — effectively an objective standard rooted in the Manual for Courts‑Martial and applied in practice [2] [5]. Reporting notes that real operational contexts (confusion, split‑second decisions, ambiguous legal authority) make this determination legally fraught and fact‑specific [4] [3].
4. Consequences for obeying or refusing: competing risks
The system creates competing punishments: obeying a manifestly unlawful order can lead to prosecution for the criminal acts committed and for following an unlawful command, while refusing a lawful order can itself be punished under Article 92. Journalists and analysts warn this tension produces fear and uncertainty among troops, who may lack legal training or immediate counsel to parse the legality of complex orders [4] [3].
5. Political and public discourse has amplified the legal debate
Recent public episodes — lawmakers urging troops to “refuse illegal orders” and presidential denunciations calling such advice “seditious” — have pushed the legal nuances into partisan headlines. Outlets and analysts emphasize that while civilians can urge caution, ultimate legal assessments rest on the UCMJ and courts; commentators also stress that characterizing ordinary command decisions as “illegal” without legal analysis risks misleading service members [7] [8] [4].
6. Practical guidance and advocacy viewpoints
Legal aid groups and FAQs for service members urge caution, explain protections and risks, and provide frameworks for when refusal may be defensible; these resources underscore that service members should seek legal counsel and document orders—but also that guidance can vary and institutional pressures complicate on‑the‑spot compliance choices [9] [5]. Advocacy sources frame the duty to disobey in terms of constitutional and international law violations, while military commentators stress the rarity and danger of misapplied refusals [6] [4].
7. What reporters say courts actually do in contested cases
Reporting indicates courts‑martial and tribunals examine the text of the order, the chain of command, the clarity of illegality, and the servicemember’s apparent understanding; outcomes hinge on those facts rather than broad slogans. Because the threshold for “manifest” unlawfulness is high and context‑dependent, many disputes end up decided after investigation and litigation rather than at the moment of the order [3] [4].
Limitations and takeaway: available sources do not provide a comprehensive catalog of judicial opinions applying these standards, but the reporting and legal summaries agree on the core framework — obey lawful orders, refuse manifestly unlawful ones, and expect courts to apply an objective‑reasonableness test while balancing operational realities [1] [3] [4].