Are there recent (last 10 years) military acquittals where unlawful-order defenses succeeded and what were the facts?

1. What the law says and how courts treat “superior orders”

Military law and influential commentaries make two firm points: service members are required to obey lawful orders but must refuse manifestly unlawful ones, and the “following orders” (Nuremberg) defense is generally not a blanket acquittal — subordinate obedience does not automatically excuse criminality if the order was manifestly unlawful or the subordinate should have known it ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Legal guides and military benchbooks note there is a defense framework for unlawful orders, but its application is fact‑specific and often difficult in practice ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Recent public controversies have driven new attention, not documented acquittals

Much of the recent (2024–2025) coverage focuses on political and institutional disputes about unlawful orders rather than on courtroom precedents where the defense won. Examples include a widely reported video by six Democratic lawmakers urging troops to refuse unlawful orders and the Pentagon’s investigatory response to retired Senator Mark Kelly after he appeared in that video — coverage centers on possible recalls, investigations, and criminal exposure, not on a prior successful unlawful‑orders acquittal in the last decade ^{[7] [8] [9] [3]}.

3. Courts and commentators stress the factual threshold — “manifestly unlawful” is rare and risky

Multiple outlets and experts quoted in the recent reporting warn that the threshold for refusing an order is high: the order must be clearly illegal on its face (e.g., an order to kill unarmed civilians), and when in doubt service members are advised to seek legal advice through channels. Commentators also stress that officers have distinct duties to refuse unlawful orders, and enlisted personnel face a default duty of obedience tempered by the requirement to disobey manifestly unlawful commands ^{[1] [10] [4]}.

4. Legal practice: defenses exist but are constrained and contested

Defense practitioners and military‑law publishers describe recognized defenses to charges for disobeying a superior (Articles 90/92 UCMJ) and say an unlawful‑order defense can lead to exoneration in some circumstances, but they emphasize uncertainty and case‑by‑case analysis; they also point to recent court rulings that complicate frontline decision‑making ^{[6] [5] [11]}. These sources make clear the practical risk: refusing a command without clear, contemporaneous legal guidance can itself lead to disciplinary action or prosecution ^{[11] [5]}.

5. Where reporting is thin or silent — no documented recent successful cases in these sources

The documents and news items provided discuss the doctrine, anecdotes, and policy fights but do not cite concrete examples in the past ten years of courts‑martial acquittals achieved specifically because the accused proved the order they followed was unlawful. Therefore, “available sources do not mention” any recent successful unlawful‑order acquittals in the U.S. military courts within the last decade (available sources do not mention a specific recent acquittal where unlawful‑order defenses succeeded).

6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in the coverage

Mainstream outlets and legal commentators argue reminding troops they may refuse unlawful orders reinforces constitutional duties and stability; conservative outlets and some official statements see such messaging as politicized and potentially disruptive to the chain of command ^{[7] [12] [13]}. The Pentagon’s investigatory posture toward a lawmaker who appeared in the video reflects an institutional interest in preserving order and deterring public interventions that could create confusion for service members ^{[8] [9]}.

7. Practical takeaway for readers and litigants

If a service member faces a situation they believe involves an unlawful order, the sources consistently advise seeking legal counsel through military channels and documenting contemporaneous objections; the legal defense exists but is fact‑specific, high‑risk, and far from a guaranteed path to acquittal ^{[5] [6]}. Given the absence in these sources of named recent acquittals based on the defense, anyone relying on such a result should seek current case law or consult military defense counsel (available sources do not mention a recent successful unlawful‑order acquittal in the last ten years).

If you want, I can search for specific court‑martial opinions or federal‑court appeals (named cases and dates) to see whether any post‑2015 decisions describe a successful unlawful‑order defense; that would go beyond the sources summarized here.