Can a soldier be court-martialed for disobeying a direct order from a superior officer?

1. Law says obey lawful orders; disobeying them can be criminal

The UCMJ’s provisions on disobedience — commonly cited as Articles 90 and 92 — make willful disobedience of a superior’s lawful command a punishable offense; Article 92 explicitly covers “failure to obey order or regulation” and can lead to court-martial, forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank and confinement ^{[1] [3]}. Commentators and military lawyers repeatedly warn that a service member who refuses an order they should have known was lawful faces real criminal exposure, administrative punishment, and career-ending consequences ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Narrow but important exception: patently illegal orders

Military rules distinguish lawful orders from those “contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States,” or otherwise beyond the issuing official’s authority; a “patently illegal” order — for example, one directing commission of a crime or atrocity — is not protected by the presumption of lawfulness ^[4]. The Manual for Courts‑Martial and related guidance treat lawfulness as a legal question for a military judge to decide, meaning the judgment about an order’s illegality often comes only in litigation after compliance or refusal ^[4].

3. The practical dilemma for troops: obey, refuse, and risk

Several analyses and military experts note the practical risk: because orders carry a presumption of legality, a subordinate who refuses must later prove the order was truly illegal to avoid conviction — a heavy burden that makes disobedience risky even when an order appears unlawful ^{[7] [1]}. The Military Law Task Force FAQ and press commentary emphasize this catch‑22: you often learn whether an order was lawful only through the court process that follows the refusal or obedience ^{[4] [7]}.

4. What defenses and standards exist in court

Military law provides defenses tied to obedience when charged for conduct done “pursuant to orders”; Rule for Courts‑Martial 916(d) and case law allow an accused to rely on orders unless they knew — or a reasonable person would have known — the orders were unlawful ^[5]. That legal standard introduces a reasonableness test: the accused’s knowledge and whether a person of “ordinary sense and understanding” would recognize the illegality matter in assessing culpability ^[5].

5. High-profile context and political debate

Recent public debates — including lawmakers’ calls urging troops to refuse illegal orders — have highlighted the tension between civic exhortations and military legal reality; commentators from multiple outlets warned that such exhortations might mislead service members about the legal peril of refusing orders, while advocates stress the constitutional duty to refuse illegal commands ^{[8] [7] [1] [9]}. Media and expert pieces reflect competing emphases: the duty to defend the Constitution versus the institutional need for obedience in a hierarchical force ^{[8] [7] [1] [9]}.

6. Bottom line for a service member weighing refusal

The law gives no blanket immunity for refusal: disobeying a superior’s order can result in court-martial if the order is lawful, and the burden to prove an order was illegal normally falls into post‑refusal proceedings ^{[4] [1]}. Conversely, there is no duty to obey an order that is patently illegal, but determining “patently illegal” can be contested in court — meaning refusal carries substantial legal and career risk ^{[4] [5]}.

Limitations and unanswered items: sources here are focused on U.S. military law and recent U.S. media/legal commentary; available sources do not mention how other countries treat disobedience or give step‑by‑step practical guidance for on‑the‑spot refusal beyond noting the legal risks (not found in current reporting).