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.
What is the legal test for an unlawful order under the UCMJ?
Executive summary
Military law presumes orders are lawful but permits refusal of orders that are clearly criminal or “manifestly illegal”; the burden falls on the service member to identify that illegality and risk discipline if they are wrong (see Military.com and Law Offices analyses) [1] [2]. Article 92 of the UCMJ criminalizes failure to obey lawful orders, so the practical legal test centers on whether an order requires a clear violation of U.S. or international law [3] [1].
1. What the statute says: obedience and Article 92
Article 92 (10 U.S.C. §892) creates the basic offense of failure to obey an order or regulation; it therefore frames the starting point: service members must obey lawful orders or face court-martial [3]. Commentators and military-defense sources emphasize that the UCMJ’s structure presumes orders’ legality while still recognizing that the duty to obey is limited to lawful orders [2] [4].
2. The prevailing practical test: “manifestly” or clearly illegal orders
Contemporary guidance and legal commentary converge on a practical rule: an order is unlawful when it requires a clear violation of U.S. criminal law, the Constitution, or international law (for example, deliberately targeting civilians or committing acts statutorily forbidden). If the illegality is obvious on its face — i.e., “manifestly illegal” — a service member has a duty to refuse [1] [5].
3. Burden and risk for the service member who refuses
Multiple sources stress that the presumption of legality is rebuttable but that the burden to show an order is unlawful falls on the service member; refusing a lawful order itself can produce punishments under Article 92 [2] [1]. Practical guides warn that sometimes the only definitive determination is made after adjudication, leaving real-world decisions high-risk [6].
4. Examples that define the line — criminal acts vs. policy disputes
Case history and education materials distinguish between orders that command criminal conduct (e.g., orders to kill unarmed civilians, rape, or other statutory crimes) — which are unlawful — and controversial, unwise, or political orders that are still lawful under the UCMJ [6] [1]. Military.com specifically notes that controversial or politically fraught orders are not unlawful merely because they are unpopular; unlawful orders involve clear statutory or international-law violations [1].
5. International law and “following orders” after Nuremberg
Commentary connects modern doctrine to the post‑World War II principle that “following orders” is not a blanket defense for war crimes; that history underpins the idea that manifestly illegal orders (especially war crimes) carry individual criminal responsibility if carried out [7] [1]. Sources underline that treaty and international-law prohibitions can render an order unlawful where it requires conduct like intentionally targeting civilians [1].
6. Gray areas and the advice offered to service members
Practical guides and FAQs counsel caution: recognizing an unlawful order can be difficult in fast-moving, hierarchical situations; some public guidance even notes that only a court may ultimately decide an order’s legality, which is why refusing can be perilous [6] [2]. Legal-advice outlets recommend documenting concerns, seeking counsel, and using chain-of-command and inspector-general channels where possible — although the provided sources emphasize the persistent tension between duty and risk [2] [7].
7. Competing perspectives and political context
News coverage and opinion pieces show debate about how broadly to urge refusals: some lawmakers and commentators urged troops to refuse illegal orders in a 2025 political context, while others warned such encouragement risks politicizing the force; coverage highlights disagreement over where the line lies and how to communicate it to service members [8] [1]. Observers note potential hidden agendas on both sides — advocates seeking to prevent unlawful acts and critics warning of undermining military discipline — and sources present both concerns [8] [5].
8. Bottom line for someone asking “what is the legal test?”
Under current reporting and legal commentary, the operative legal test is whether an order plainly requires commission of an act that is criminal under U.S. or international law — i.e., whether it is manifestly illegal; because Article 92 punishes disobedience of lawful orders, a service member who refuses must be prepared for legal scrutiny and bears the burden of proving the order’s illegality [1] [3] [2]. Available sources do not provide a single line‑by‑line statutory checklist beyond this manifest‑illegality standard (not found in current reporting).