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 courts-martial evaluate claims of obeying an unlawful order in practice?
Executive summary
Courts-martial treat the legality of an order as a legal question for the military judge: an order is presumed lawful unless it conflicts with the Constitution, U.S. law, or is “patently illegal” (for example, an order to commit atrocities) — and that determination typically occurs only after a servicemember either obeys or refuses and the matter reaches tribunal scrutiny [1] [2]. The Manual for Courts‑Martial and Article 92 of the UCMJ set the framework: obey lawful orders, disobey unlawful ones, and judges—sometimes after litigation—decide lawfulness; recent proposed MCM amendments and guidance documents are under public comment [3] [4] [5].
1. Lawful-unless-proven-illegal: the legal default and who decides
The Rules for Courts‑Martial articulate a presumption that an order is lawful unless it contravenes the Constitution, U.S. laws, or exceeds the issuer’s authority; only a “patently illegal” command (for example, an instruction to commit murder or rape) removes that presumption at the outset [1]. The MCM makes clear that the lawfulness of an order is a question of law for the military judge to decide — meaning that, in practice, judges resolve contested legality after briefing and evidence at trial rather than commanders in the field [1] [5].
2. “Patently illegal” versus hard calls: where practice matters
In practice, courts recognize a narrow category of orders as patently illegal — those directing clearly criminal conduct like atrocities — with historical precedents (e.g., prosecutions for killing civilians or orders to rape and steal) cited to illustrate extremes [1]. For orders that are less obviously criminal or that involve complex rules of engagement or policy judgments, the presumption of lawfulness tends to remain, so the accused must often present factual and legal proof to rebut it at court-martial [1] [2].
3. The burden and the forum: how claims play out in litigation
Because the judge decides lawfulness, the defense typically raises an unlawful-order claim as a factual and legal issue during a court‑martial, presenting evidence about the order’s content, context, and the accused’s perceptions; prosecutors counter with evidence of necessity, authority, or lawful intent [1] [5]. The Manual for Courts‑Martial and practice materials therefore structure who litigates which points and when — and recent proposed amendments to the MCM were open for comment as of October 2025, signaling evolving procedural detail that attorneys and commanders watch [4].
4. Criminal liability, obedience, and Article 92
Article 92 of the UCMJ anchors the duty: service members must follow lawful orders and disobey unlawful ones; wilful disobedience of a lawful order remains punishable, while obedience to an unlawful order does not automatically shield criminal responsibility if the order was not patently illegal or if the accused should have known it was unlawful [3] [2]. Practically, that means defendants who obey borderline or ambiguous orders face uphill litigation to show the order removed the presumption of lawfulness [3] [2].
5. Advice channels, command guidance, and real‑world decisionmaking
When a service member doubts an order’s legality, military practice — and legal guidance — encourages seeking advice from chain‑of‑command legal counsel and other in‑service legal resources; commentary from legal scholars and reporting stresses that personnel should consult judge advocates when in doubt, because the lawfulness question will later be litigated by a judge [2]. Lawmakers and public figures have recently urged troops to refuse illegal orders publicly, but those pronouncements operate alongside the statutory and MCM framework that governs courtroom review [3].
6. Reform, transparency, and implications for defendants
Ongoing changes to military justice — including executive orders and MCM amendments that shifted prosecutorial structures and sentencing rules — have altered the practical landscape of courts‑martial and could affect how unlawful‑order defenses fare, because reforms change who prosecutes, sentencing norms, and procedural detail [6] [4]. Observers and defense practitioners note that more formalized prosecutorial screening and judge‑led sentencing can make trials both more professional and, some argue, more risky for accused service members [6].
7. Limits of available reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources outline the legal standards, historical examples, and procedural roles (judge, MCM, Article 92) but do not provide a comprehensive empirical picture of how often unlawful‑order defenses succeed in modern courts‑martial or detailed statistical outcomes; that data is not found in current reporting supplied here (not found in current reporting). They also do not set out every evidentiary tactic used in practice beyond the high‑level frameworks described (not found in current reporting).
Summary: The courts‑martial system rests on a presumption of lawfulness resolved by military judges; only patently illegal orders are treated as unlawful at the outset, and real‑world outcomes hinge on litigation over facts and legal interpretation, evolving MCM rules, and the operational advice troops receive before acting [1] [5] [4] [3] [2].