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 are key landmark U.S. military court cases addressing obedience and illegal orders?
Executive summary
Key U.S. military-law precedents on obedience and unlawful orders center on high‑profile criminal prosecutions like Lt. William Calley for My Lai, plus federal civil rulings about using troops domestically such as Judge Charles Breyer’s 2025 injunction finding the deployment of soldiers in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act (Breyer ordered the military stopped from doing arrests, searches, traffic/crowd control and interrogation) [1]. Contemporary reporting and legal guides show a consensus that service members are required to follow lawful orders and must refuse “patently illegal” ones — with courts and commentators disagreeing on how clear “patently illegal” must be in practice [2] [3].
1. Landmark criminal prosecutions that shaped the doctrine: My Lai and Calley
The clearest historical touchstone for “following orders” litigation in U.S. military law is the My Lai prosecutions, most famously Lt. William Calley’s court‑martial for the massacre of civilians; his case is consistently cited as the defining U.S. example where a soldier was prosecuted for carrying out criminal orders [2] [4]. Legal explainer and advocacy materials reference Calley to illustrate that an order to kill unarmed civilians is the archetype of an order a service member must refuse [2]. Available sources do not provide a broad list of older precedents beyond this example; library and research guides note that military appellate reports remain the place to find historic decisions [5].
2. Civil‑law checks on domestic military use: Posse Comitatus and Breyer’s 2025 ruling
Recent federal litigation has pushed the limits of domestic military use into the courts: in 2025 U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the Trump administration’s use of federalized troops in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act and enjoined soldiers from performing routine law‑enforcement activities such as arrests, searches, traffic and crowd control, and interrogation — a ruling legal analysts called historic as the first injunction enforcing Posse Comitatus in this way [1]. Reporting shows appellate and other federal courts have continued to adjudicate parallel disputes about federalizing and deploying Guard or active forces, producing a patchwork of orders and stays [6] [7].
3. What the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and courts say now
Legal primers and news coverage repeat the settled proposition: the UCMJ requires obedience to lawful orders and does not protect following an unlawful one; service members can be prosecuted for carrying out illegal orders and, conversely, have duties to refuse clearly illegal commands [3] [8]. Military‑law FAQs used by advocates emphasize the threshold concept of a “patently illegal” order — typically an order to commit atrocities — as the point where refusal is required [2]. Surveys and commentary suggest many troops understand this duty, but practitioners warn the line between lawful and unlawful can be legally and practically fraught [9] [10].
4. Conflicting claims and political controversy in 2025 reporting
Recent political events heightened disagreement about scope and risk. Elected lawmakers produced a video urging service members to refuse unlawful orders, prompting sharp political backlash, including accusations of sedition from the White House; legal experts cited in reporting told Newsweek and CNN that urging troops to disobey unlawful orders is legally defensible and not necessarily sedition [11] [12] [13]. Commentary at Just Security warned that new executive‑branch moves and questions about presidential immunity complicate whether troops can rely on courts to protect them if they refuse orders [14].
5. Practical guidance and institutional limits
Practitioners and defense guides advise caution: orders carry a presumption of legality, and except in clear cases (e.g., shooting unarmed civilians), troops are told to seek legal counsel or clarification before refusing an order; military manuals and recent case law reinforce counselling and escalation channels rather than unilateral disobedience [8] [3]. At the same time, public‑facing legal FAQs and advocacy groups stress that refusal is not only permitted but required for manifestly criminal orders [2].
6. Where to look next — records and appellate precedent
For readers seeking primary rulings and a fuller list of military cases on obedience, the military appellate opinions and court‑martial reporters are the primary sources; university guides and the Army’s public dockets point researchers to Court‑Martial Reports and official appellate opinion repositories [5] [15] [16]. Contemporary litigation over domestic deployments and federalization — including Ninth Circuit and district court rulings referenced in contemporary coverage — will likely generate new precedents and clarifications [7] [17].
Limitations: available sources emphasize My Lai/Calley historically and the 2025 Posse Comitatus litigation as the current flashpoint; a comprehensive catalogue of “landmark” military‑court decisions on lawful versus unlawful orders is not assembled in the provided materials, so readers should consult military appellate reporters and the cited public dockets for deeper case law [5] [16].