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 did U.S. courts rule in United States v. Calley regarding obedience to unlawful orders in My Lai?
Executive summary
The U.S. military and federal courts rejected Calley’s "just following orders" defense: Lieutenant William L. Calley Jr. was court-martialed, convicted in 1971 of premeditated murder for killing 22 civilians at My Lai, and the military and civilian appeals largely upheld that accountability while narrowing some procedural issues [1] [2]. Courts emphasized that summary killing of civilians who had submitted is murder and that soldiers are not excused simply because a superior ordered the conduct [3] [4].
1. Court-martial conviction: the baseline ruling and sentence
The general court-martial at Fort Benning found Calley guilty on March 29, 1971, of the premeditated murder of at least 22 Vietnamese civilians and assault with intent to murder one child; the court sentenced him to dismissal and life at hard labor [1] [2]. Contemporary accounts and the PBS American Experience summary underscore that Calley was the only officer convicted in the My Lai prosecutions and that the jury’s verdict centered on those specific killings [5] [6].
2. Legal principle applied: obedience to orders is not an absolute defense
Military appellate opinions and commentary in the record stressed a long-settled rule: even in war, the summary killing of persons who have submitted and are under effective control is murder, and ignorance or mere obedience to orders does not automatically excuse the actor [3] [4]. Appellate briefing and case summaries make clear that Calley’s counsel argued he was following orders and lacked legal knowledge, but the courts treated such arguments as insufficient to absolve responsibility for deliberate killings of unarmed civilians [2] [3].
3. Appeals and habeas litigation: procedural holdings and reinstatement
After the court-martial and sentencing, litigation moved into federal courts. A district court granted habeas corpus relief at one point, but the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc reversed that grant, reinstating the court-martial judgment and upholding the conviction and sentence; later procedural moves reduced or altered Calley’s confinement status during appeals [1] [7]. The appellate opinions focused heavily on procedural and standard-of-proof issues rather than announcing a new broad rule that obedience to illegal orders is always excused [1] [8].
4. Standard for unlawful orders: “manifestly unlawful” and mens rea context
Although the provided sources do not recite a single formulaic test from the published opinion in long form, later analyses and legal commentary around Calley’s case place emphasis on whether an order is manifestly unlawful such that a reasonable soldier would know it is illegal — a threshold that limits a blanket obedience defense and that has informed subsequent doctrinal discussion [9] [8]. The court’s reasoning in the military appellate proceedings treated the criminality of killing unarmed, submitted civilians as clear enough that Calley could be held to know the unlawfulness of such acts [3] [2].
5. What the courts did not do: no licence to obey criminal orders
Available sources do not report that any U.S. court in Calley’s litigation accepted a defense that following a superior’s order automatically relieved a subordinate of criminal liability for murder; instead, courts affirmed the principle that manifestly criminal orders must be disobeyed and that obedience is not an automatic exculpation [3] [2]. Scholarship and case summaries indicate debate about standards (e.g., negligence vs. knowing criminality) but not a reversal of the basic rule that slaughtering unarmed civilians is murder [10] [3].
6. Broader context and competing perspectives
Coverage and legal commentary reveal two competing themes: prosecutors and appellate courts insisted on individual criminal responsibility for atrocities and rejected obedience as a blanket defense [1] [3]; by contrast, some commentators and defenses argued mitigation based on military discipline, confusion, or poor training — views that fostered public sympathy for Calley in some quarters and produced sustained debate about culpability thresholds [4] [10]. The Library of Congress and PBS materials capture both the legal outcome and the social controversy that followed [5] [6].
7. Limitations in the sources and what's not found
The supplied documents summarize the convictions, appeals, and legal principles but do not include full opinion texts spelling out a single expressed “manifestly unlawful” test codified by the Court of Military Appeals; detailed doctrinal evolution after the case is treated in later commentary rather than in the core opinions provided here [1] [9]. For any precise quote of the appellate holding or a full statement of the standard applied to lawful/unlawful orders, the full court opinions and subsequent doctrinal materials should be consulted — those full texts are not reproduced in the snippets assembled above [1] [8].