SCOTUS Set to Make Landmark War Decision

The Supreme Court will hear a landmark case that could finally allow wounded veterans to hold defense contractors legally accountable for negligence in war zones, challenging decades of corporate immunity.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has agreed to review Hencely v. Fluor Corp., a case brought by Army Specialist Winston Hencely who suffered life-altering injuries in a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.
• At issue is whether defense contractors can be shielded from lawsuits under the “combatant-activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which has traditionally protected them from legal accountability.
• The case centers on allegations that Fluor Corporation negligently failed to prevent the attack by an employee, which resulted in six deaths and 17 injuries.
• The Supreme Court’s decision could resolve a significant circuit court split over contractor immunity and establish new precedent for military personnel seeking damages for contractor negligence.
• No justices dissented from the decision to hear the case, suggesting potential agreement on the need to clarify this area of law.

A Soldier’s Fight for Justice

Former Army Specialist Winston Hencely’s legal battle against defense contractor Fluor Corporation stems from a devastating 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The attack, carried out by an employee working at the base, killed six people and injured 17 others, including Hencely who suffered severe, life-changing injuries. His lawsuit alleges that Fluor failed to implement proper security protocols that could have prevented the attack, amounting to negligence that directly contributed to the tragedy. The case has worked its way through the lower courts, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit previously ruling that Hencely’s claims were barred under federal law.

“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,” stated Butler Prather LLP.

Legal Shield Under Scrutiny

At the core of this case is the “combatant-activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which has long been used to shield both the U.S. military and its contractors from lawsuits related to wartime activities. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling determined that this exception barred Hencely’s claims against Fluor, effectively immunizing the contractor from legal accountability. However, Hencely’s legal team argues that this exception was never intended to apply to government contractors, creating a virtual immunity that Congress never authorized. This legal disagreement reflects a broader “3-1-1 circuit split” across federal appeals courts on how this exception should be applied.

“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.

Contractor Defense and Constitutional Questions

Fluor Corporation maintains that the Fourth Circuit correctly applied existing precedent, arguing that state-law tort claims arising from military combatant activities are properly preempted by federal law. Their defense rests on the principle that military operations in war zones should not be subject to varying state laws and civilian court oversight. The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear this case signals recognition of the significant constitutional questions at play regarding the separation of powers, federal preemption, and the proper balance between military necessity and contractor accountability when negligence is alleged.

“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,” stated Fluor.

Implications for Military Contractors and Service Members

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for both defense contractors and military personnel. If the Court sides with Hencely, it could significantly alter the legal landscape by creating a clearer pathway for injured service members to seek compensation when contractor negligence contributes to harm in combat zones. Such a ruling would likely force defense contractors to implement more rigorous safety and security protocols. Conversely, if the Court upholds the Fourth Circuit’s decision, it would reinforce the broad immunity contractors currently enjoy, potentially leaving service members with limited options for recourse when harmed by contractor negligence.

“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.

Unanimous Interest from the Court

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant review without any noted dissents suggests a collective recognition among the justices that this case presents important questions requiring resolution at the highest level. This unanimous willingness to hear the case is particularly noteworthy given the Court’s careful selection process. With multiple legal firms representing Hencely against Fluor’s counsel from Covington & Burling LLP, the stage is set for a significant legal showdown that will clarify the boundaries of contractor immunity and potentially reshape accountability structures for private entities operating alongside our military in conflict zones.