Your fact-checks will appear here
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) addresses lawful and unlawful orders primarily through Articles 90 and 92: Article 92 criminalizes failure to obey orders or regulations, and Article 90 cri...
U.S. military law treats an order as “lawful” if it is within the issuing officer’s authority, serves a valid military purpose, and does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution, statutes, or internati...
Military law treats obedience as presumptive and legality as contested: Article 92 of the UCMJ makes failure to obey a lawful order punishable, yet multiple legal guides and scholarship recognize defe...
When a service member suspects an order is unlawful, the Manual for Courts‑Martial (MCM) frames the legal test and procedures that govern response: an order is presumed lawful unless it conflicts with...
Refusing a lawful order can subject a service member to court-martial and penalties under Article 92 of the UCMJ; orders are presumptively lawful and obedience is a central duty . Following an unlawfu...
Military precedent and practice treat the phrase “manifestly unlawful” as a narrow, high bar: an order must be “clear and obvious” or “patently illegal” on its face (for example, ordering murder of ci...
Military law presumes orders are lawful unless they violate the U.S. Constitution, federal law, lawful superior orders, or exceed the issuer’s authority; a military judge decides lawfulness as a quest...
Service regulations and branch manuals interpret obedience under the UCMJ as a duty to follow lawful orders, enforcement mechanisms for disobedience (Article 92), and procedural tools commanders use s...
The lawfulness of a military order under the UCMJ turns on whether the order comes from a competent authority, has a valid military purpose and fits within applicable law and regulations, and is clear...