Are there recent courts-martial or case law examples where following an unlawful order was successfully used as a defense?
Executive summary
Recent reporting and legal commentary show no clear, recent example in U.S. military courts where a defendant successfully avoided conviction by proving they were “just following” an unlawful order; modern authorities emphasize that following orders is not a defense to manifestly illegal commands and that servicemembers can be prosecuted for obeying crimes [1] [2]. Contemporary coverage instead focuses on guidance, doctrine and high-profile disputes about urging troops to refuse unlawful orders (e.g., lawmakers’ video and Pentagon reactions), not on case law vindicating obedience as a defense [3] [4].
1. The baseline rule: “Following orders” is not a blanket defense
Military law repeatedly states that obedience is required only for lawful orders and that acting pursuant to orders is not a defense if the accused knew or should have known the order was unlawful; authorities and surveys stress that service members who obey illegal commands can still be court-martialed or prosecuted internationally [1] [2] [5].
2. Courts and doctrine: the judge decides lawfulness, not the soldier
The Manual for Courts‑Martial and Rules for Courts‑Martial say the lawfulness of an order is a legal question for the military judge, and the presumption that an order is lawful can be rebutted when an order is “patently illegal” (e.g., directing crimes or atrocities) — meaning most contested cases turn on whether the order met the “manifestly unlawful” threshold [6] [7].
3. Recent reporting: focus on guidance and political controversy, not successful defenses
News outlets in late 2025 covered lawmakers urging troops to refuse unlawful orders and the Pentagon’s review of a retired officer turned senator for doing so, but these stories discuss legal duty and administrative or jurisdictional consequences rather than citing a recent court‑martial where obedience won the accused’s case [3] [4] [8].
4. Precedent remains hostile to “just following orders” for serious crimes
Historical and scholarly sources referenced in the coverage remind readers that landmark jurisprudence (and international tribunals) reject superior‑orders defenses for war crimes; reporting on My Lai and other cases illustrates that following an illegal order has long been insufficient to avoid responsibility for atrocities [6] [9].
5. Where defenses can and can’t work — a practical, doctrinal split
Rule for Courts‑Martial 916(d) recognizes acting pursuant to orders as a potential defense unless the accused knew or a person of ordinary understanding would have known the order was unlawful — so in close, non‑manifest cases defense arguments can be raised, but courts evaluate them factually and judges often rule against defendants who obey obvious criminal commands [10] [6].
6. Litigation and jurisdictional complications around recall and prosecution
Commentary notes the government may consider recalling retired personnel to active duty to face military process, but such moves raise procedural and jurisdictional disputes that are litigated separately from the substantive question of whether obeying an order is a defense — meaning controversy over exhortations to refuse orders has produced procedural fights more than new precedents excusing obedience [4] [11].
7. Alternative viewpoints: caution versus civil‑military norms
Advocates urging troops to refuse unlawful orders emphasize legal duty and moral obligation to disobey manifest crimes; critics warn such messages can undermine civilian control and confuse front‑line decisionmaking because legality is not always obvious and refusing lawful orders is itself punishable [3] [12].
8. What the available sources do not show
Available sources do not mention any recent U.S. courts‑martial or federal appellate decisions in 2024–2025 where a defendant prevailed on the ground that they were following an unlawful order (not found in current reporting). They likewise do not provide a catalogue of successful “following orders” defenses in modern U.S. military courts (not found in current reporting).
9. Practical takeaway for readers
The authoritative trend in reporting and legal commentary is clear: obey lawful orders; refuse manifestly illegal ones; but don’t expect “I was just following orders” to be a reliable exoneration in a court‑martial — judges decide lawfulness, and serious obedience to an obviously criminal order has historically led to conviction rather than acquittal [1] [7].
If you want, I can search specifically for any recent court‑martial opinions or federal appellate cases (2000–2025) that tested the “following orders” defense and compile the case citations and outcomes from available databases.