Supreme Court Allows Veteran’s Lawsuit Against Military Contractor

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in a 6-3 decision permitting a lawsuit from a U.S. Army veteran injured in a Taliban suicide bombing in 2016 to move forward, reversing a prior dismissal by a lower court.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, supported by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. This decision marked a rare moment of agreement between justices across the political spectrum, confirming that military contractors could be held accountable for negligence and misconduct under state law.

The retired Army specialist, Winston Tyler Hencely, filed the lawsuit against Fluor Corporation following injuries sustained during the attack at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. In 2016, an Afghan national working for the company, later identified as a Taliban member, detonated a suicide vest, resulting in the deaths of five individuals and injuring 17 others, including Hencely, who suffered severe head injuries. Tragically, two soldiers and two civilian contractors perished in the attack, with a fifth soldier dying later from related injuries.

Initially, a Fourth Circuit court in South Carolina upheld a federal exemption related to combat activities, granting immunity to the federal government for issues arising from military actions during wartime, as noted in court documents.

“The Fourth Circuit’s decision maintained that Hencely’s claims were preempted, even though the actions in question were not sanctioned by the Federal Government. No aspect of the Constitution or federal law justifies such preemption of state authority over tort claims. Thus, we vacate the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and return the case for further proceedings,” the ruling indicated.

The justices highlighted that Hencely is now permanently disabled as a result of his injuries.

The opinion further explained that Hencely’s lawsuit against Fluor involved state-law tort claims focused on the company’s negligent retention and supervision of the attacker. Both Hencely and the U.S. military contended that Fluor’s actions were not authorized by military command and actually contradicted guidelines provided to them for operating at the base.

Three justices—Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh—dissented, expressing their concerns.

“Can a state regulate security protocols on a military base in an active war zone? Can local judges and juries evaluate matters closely linked to military decisions? In my view, the answer must be ‘no,’” Alito stated in his dissent. “Authority between the federal government and states varies across many areas, but not in matters of war. The Constitution reserves war powers exclusively for the federal government, and yet this Court permits state law to intrude. The Constitution forbids such intrusion, so I dissent respectfully.”