"I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS"
DOES THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY SHIELD TRUMP'S HENCHMEN
The age-old defense: "I was just following orders." It’s the legal equivalent of shrugging your shoulders and muttering, “Don’t blame me, I’m just the messenger.” While this excuse has been thoroughly roasted, rejected, and relegated to the annals of bad legal strategies—thank you, Nuremberg Trials—it seems to be enjoying a bit of a revival among certain members of the Trump administration. But here’s the million-dollar question: Can the Supreme Court’s embrace of the Unitary Executive Theory—a doctrine that essentially paints the president as a monarch with a really good PR team—extend its protective bubble to his loyal foot soldiers? And if so, what does that mean for accountability, constitutional law, and the future of avoiding responsibility with a straight face?
The Unitary Executive Theory: A Presidential Hall Pass?
Let’s start with the basics. The Unitary Executive Theory argues that all executive power is concentrated in the president. In its most extreme interpretation, it means that the president can do pretty much anything within the executive branch without interference from Congress or pesky laws. Think of it as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for executive overreach.
Under this framework, Trump and his administration pushed boundaries like a teenager testing curfew limits. From controversial immigration policies to alleged violations of congressional spending powers, the administration seemed to operate under the assumption that if the president said it’s okay, it must be okay. And if you're an ICE agent, DOJ official, or HHS bureaucrat carrying out these orders, well, you might think you’ve got a nifty legal shield courtesy of your boss’s interpretation of constitutional authority.
But here’s where things get sticky. The Supreme Court has yet to definitively rule on whether the Unitary Executive Theory can absolve not just the president but also his underlings from legal consequences. It’s one thing to argue that the president is immune from certain lawsuits while in office (a claim that’s already controversial). It’s another thing entirely to suggest that immunity trickles down like some sort of authoritarian rainstorm, soaking everyone from cabinet secretaries to intern-level staffers.
"Just Following Orders": A Defense That History Already Dunked On
Let’s take a quick detour to Nuremberg, where some of history’s most infamous war criminals tried—and failed—to use the “just following orders” defense. Adolf Eichmann and his colleagues argued that they weren’t personally responsible for atrocities because they were simply obeying commands from higher-ups. The judges weren’t buying it. They ruled that individuals have a moral and legal duty to disobey illegal orders, especially when those orders involve crimes against humanity.
Fast forward to today, and the precedent set by Nuremberg still looms large. Whether you’re a soldier on the battlefield or a government official in Washington, “I was just following orders” doesn’t cut it when those orders violate the law. As noted in military law and international human rights doctrine, there’s an obligation to disobey illegal commands—even if doing so might make your boss very, very angry.
Trump’s Henchmen: Legal Accountability or Executive Immunity?
The answer depends on how far courts are willing to stretch executive immunity. Historically, courts have been reluctant to extend blanket immunity to lower-level officials simply because they were acting on presidential orders. After all, if every government employee could dodge accountability by pointing up the chain of command, we’d be living in a bureaucratic Wild West where laws are more like suggestions.
Take the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for example. U.S. service members are required to disobey patently illegal orders—a principle rooted in both constitutional law and ethical conduct. This isn’t just theoretical; it’s been drilled into military training since Nuremberg. The same logic applies to civilian government officials: If an order violates the Constitution or federal law, you don’t get a free pass for carrying it out.
The Supreme Court: Will They Remember Nuremberg?
Here’s where things get interesting—and potentially terrifying. The Supreme Court has increasingly leaned toward expanding executive power in recent years, with decisions that bolster presidential authority at the expense of congressional oversight. If this trend continues, could we see a ruling that essentially says, “As long as you’re following presidential orders, you’re untouchable”? Let’s hope not.
Justice demands accountability, even when it’s inconvenient for those in power. The Nuremberg Trials didn’t just reject the “following orders” defense; they established a precedent that individuals are responsible for their actions, no matter who told them to act. If the Supreme Court were to ignore this legacy in favor of shielding government officials under an expanded Unitary Executive Theory, it would undermine decades of progress in holding leaders—and their subordinates—accountable.
Constitutional Violations: A Greatest Hits Album
Let’s not forget that many of Trump’s policies raised serious constitutional red flags. From alleged First Amendment infringements (hello, attacks on journalists) to ignoring Congress’s budgetary authority (remember when funds were redirected for border wall construction?), there was no shortage of legal controversy during his administration. And while Trump himself might argue that his actions were protected under executive privilege or immunity, what about everyone else involved?
If ICE agents carried out unconstitutional immigration raids or HHS officials implemented policies that violated federal laws, can they really hide behind the president’s coattails? The Constitution doesn’t work that way—or at least it shouldn’t. Accountability isn’t supposed to stop at the Oval Office door.
Lessons from History—and Psychology
Let’s end with a quick nod to psychology because, let’s face it, understanding human behavior helps us grasp why people follow orders—even bad ones. Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments on obedience showed that people are surprisingly willing to carry out harmful actions when instructed by authority figures. But here’s the kicker: Feeling coerced doesn’t absolve responsibility. New research suggests that while coercion dampens people’s sense of agency, it doesn’t erase their ethical obligations.
In other words: Sure, you might feel less responsible when you’re “just following orders,” but that doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible.
Final Thoughts: Accountability Matters
At its core, this debate isn’t just about Trump or his administration—it’s about whether we value accountability as a cornerstone of democracy. If courts start handing out immunity like participation trophies to government officials who violate laws under presidential orders, we risk eroding the very principles that make our system work.
So let’s hope the Supreme Court remembers Nuremberg and rejects any attempt to expand executive immunity into a catch-all excuse for bad behavior. Because at the end of the day, “I was just following orders” should stay where it belongs: in history books as a cautionary tale—not as a viable defense in modern America.
How the Nazi’s defense of ‘just following orders’ plays out in the mind | PBS News https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-the-nazis-defense-of-just-following-orders-plays-out-in-the-mind
Obeying Orders | Facing History & Ourselves https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/obeying-orders
tal 2020 issue 6 | The Army Lawyer | Periodicals | TJAGLCS https://tjaglcs.army.mil/Periodicals/The-Army-Lawyer/tal-2020-issue-6/Post/5691/Practice-Notes-Training-the-Defense-of-Superior-Orders
Fact Sheet: “Following Orders” Is No Defense to War Crimes: The Duty to Disobey Illegal Military Orders - Human Rights First https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/fact-sheet-following-orders-is-no-defense-to-war-crimes-the-duty-to-disobey-illegal-military-orders/
