The Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling in Hencely v. Fluor Corp. could fundamentally change how wounded American soldiers can hold defense contractors accountable for negligence in war zones, potentially removing long-standing immunity protections.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has agreed to review a lawsuit by Army Specialist Winston Hencely against Fluor Corporation over a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield that left him with life-altering injuries.
- Lower courts dismissed Hencely’s claims under the “combatant-activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act, which typically shields military operations from liability.
- The Court’s decision will address a circuit split on whether defense contractors can claim the same immunity protections as the U.S. military.
- This ruling will establish precedent on the extent to which injured American soldiers can sue private companies operating in war zones.
- The case highlights tensions between protecting military operations from litigation and ensuring accountability for negligence by private contractors.
Battlefield Accountability at Stake
In a decision that could reshape military contractor accountability, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Hencely v. Fluor Corp., a case that strikes at the heart of whether American soldiers can sue defense contractors for negligence in war zones. The lawsuit stems from a devastating 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan that killed six people and injured 17 others, including Army Specialist Winston Hencely who suffered life-altering injuries. Hencely alleges that Fluor Corporation negligently employed and failed to monitor the Afghan national who carried out the attack while working at the military installation.
“The petition centers on the scope of contractors’ ability to avoid responsibility—an issue that has divided lower federal courts and significantly affects wounded veterans’ rights,” said Butler Prather LLP, part of Hencely’s legal team.
Legal Battlefield: Immunity vs. Accountability
The case hinges on the “combatant-activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which typically shields the government from lawsuits related to military operations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit previously ruled that this exception also protects Fluor as a government contractor, effectively barring Hencely’s lawsuit. This decision aligned with some circuit courts but contradicted others, creating what Hencely’s petition describes as a “3-1-1 circuit split” that requires Supreme Court resolution. The fundamental question is whether private companies working alongside the military can claim the same immunity protections as the government itself.
“Congress said the ‘opposite,’ as the Fourth Circuit recognized that the FTCA’s terms and the combatant-activities exception don’t apply to government contractors,” said Hencely.
Defense Contractor’s Position
Fluor Corporation maintains that the Fourth Circuit correctly applied the law by extending the combatant-activities exception to contractors operating in war zones. Their legal position rests on the principle that allowing state tort laws to regulate military operations through lawsuits against contractors would effectively permit state regulation of federal military conduct. This creates a complex constitutional question about whether state law can influence military operations indirectly through contractor liability. The company argues that permitting such lawsuits would create uncertainty for contractors supporting critical military operations and potentially hamper national security objectives.
“Fluor’s April 28 response to the petition said the Fourth Circuit correctly agreed with all other circuits to address ‘whether state-law tort claims arising out of the military’s ‘combatant activities’ can be preempted by the FTCA’s combatant-activities exception,” said Fluor.
Supreme Court’s Unanimous Interest
In a notable development, the Supreme Court granted Hencely’s petition without any dissenting opinions, suggesting the justices universally recognize the importance of resolving this legal question. The Court’s decision came on June 2 in an unsigned order that offered no additional insight into the justices’ reasoning. The case, officially titled Hencely v. Fluor Corp., U.S., No. 24-924, represents a critical opportunity for the Court to clarify when and how defense contractors can be held accountable for negligence in war zones. This ruling will have far-reaching implications for both the rights of service members and the responsibilities of the contractors who support them.
“The Supreme Court decided on June 2 to consider whether a U.S. soldier should be allowed to sue a defense contractor over a suicide bombing during U.S. military operations in Afghanistan,” stated The Supreme Court.
Implications for Military Operations
The Court’s eventual ruling will navigate competing priorities: protecting military operations from disruptive litigation while ensuring accountability for negligence. For conservatives concerned with national security, the case presents a challenging balance between supporting our troops and maintaining effective military operations. The potential for increased liability could affect how defense contractors operate in war zones, potentially increasing costs or causing hesitation in accepting certain contracts. Yet accountability for negligence that endangers American troops remains a core value across political lines. President Trump has consistently advocated for both military strength and accountability for those who fail our soldiers.
