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 the key elements of a lawful order under the UCMJ?
Executive summary
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) distinguishes three core types of disobedience: violating a lawful general order or regulation; failing to obey other lawful orders; and dereliction of duty — each with discrete elements the prosecution must prove [1] [2]. Courts and commentators stress that a lawful order must come from someone with authority and be consistent with the Constitution and U.S. law; service members also retain recognized defenses for unlawful orders [3] [4].
1. What the statute actually requires: the three buckets of Article 92
Article 92 is parsed into three main offenses: (a) violation of a lawful general order or regulation, (b) failure to obey other lawful orders (direct orders), and (c) dereliction of duty — each category carries its own elements and potential punishments [2] [1]. Military practice and manuals treat these as distinct inquiries: proving an existing lawful order or regulation is different from proving a specific direct order was given and breached, and different again from proving a service member willfully or negligently failed in assigned duties [1] [5].
2. Element 1 — existence and lawfulness of the order or regulation
To convict for violating a general order the government must show that a “certain lawful general order or regulation was in effect,” meaning the rule had legal force and was not contrary to the Constitution, federal law, or beyond the issuer’s authority [1] [3]. Legal scholars caution that “glosses of lawfulness” — legal rationales appended to orders — can complicate whether an order truly is lawful, and courts look to statutory and constitutional boundaries in assessing lawfulness [6].
3. Element 2 — duty to obey: authority and notice
The accused must have had a duty to obey the order or regulation. For direct orders, the person issuing the order must have had authority to impose the duty, which can be based on law, regulation, custom, or an applicable directive; the issuer need not always be higher in rank, but must have the power to impose the duty [3] [7]. For general orders, courts typically do not require proof the accused actually knew the order existed — reflective of the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat — though mens rea about particular facts (e.g., age in alcohol cases) can remain relevant [1].
4. Element 3 — the act: violation, failure, or dereliction
The final element is proof the accused violated or failed to obey the order/regulation or was derelict in duty. Dereliction has its own tripartite test: the accused had duties, knew or reasonably should have known of them, and willfully or through neglect failed to perform them [1]. Case law shows the government may need to prove mental state in some contexts (e.g., intent or recklessness), so an apparent failure is not automatically criminal without the required mens rea [1].
5. Lawful vs unlawful orders — rights and defenses
Military law and defense practitioners repeatedly emphasize that service members are only required to obey lawful orders; unlawful orders (e.g., those violating the Constitution or U.S. law) may be refused, and refusing unlawful orders is a recognized defense [3] [4]. Practical tensions remain: refusing an order can carry career risk even if the refusal would ultimately be legally justified, and commentators urge careful procedural channels (Inspector General, congressional inquiry) and legal counsel [8] [9].
6. High‑level complications and scholarly debate
Scholars and analysts note important complications: application of Articles 90 and 92 to orders from top civilian authorities (president, secretary of defense) raises questions about whether senior officers face criminal exposure for refusing certain presidential orders, and whether the UCMJ’s definitions of “lawful order” and “duty to obey” operate as straightforwardly in those settings [10]. This literature highlights that statutory text, the Manual for Courts‑Martial, and real-world command structures can produce ambiguous outcomes in high‑stakes scenarios [10].
7. Practical takeaways for service members and lawyers
Practically, the government must prove [11] a lawful order or regulation existed, [12] the accused had a duty to obey it (authority and notice considerations), and [13] the accused violated it or was derelict — with mens rea particularities varying by sub‑type of charge [1] [5]. When disputing charges, defenses commonly attack the order’s lawfulness, the issuer’s authority, mens rea, or whether duties were known or reasonably should have been known [7] [4].
Limitations and gaps: available sources explain the statutory elements, case examples, and scholarly disputes but do not provide a single consolidated checklist from a Manual for Courts‑Martial excerpt in the provided materials; readers seeking step‑by‑step courtroom proof requirements should consult the Manual and controlling case law directly (not found in current reporting) [1] [10].