Supreme Court opens door to legal reckoning for defense contractors as injured U.S. soldier’s lawsuit against Fluor Corp. moves forward, potentially ending decades of immunity from accountability in war zones.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will hear Army Specialist Winston Hencely’s case against defense contractor Fluor Corp. for alleged negligence leading to a 2016 suicide bombing in Afghanistan.
- The case challenges the “combatant-activities exception” that has traditionally shielded defense contractors from lawsuits.
- A circuit split exists on whether private contractors can claim immunity under exceptions meant for military operations.
- The Court’s unanimous decision to hear the case signals its importance for military personnel’s rights and contractor accountability.
- The ruling could fundamentally change the legal relationship between American service members and private military contractors.
Soldier’s Fight For Justice Reaches Highest Court
In a development that could reshape accountability standards for military contractors, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark case brought by Army Specialist Winston Hencely against Fluor Corporation. The lawsuit stems from a devastating 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan that left Hencely severely injured, killed six others, and wounded 16 additional personnel. Hencely alleges that Fluor’s negligent supervision of its employees directly contributed to the attack, raising profound questions about the legal protections typically afforded to contractors operating alongside American military forces.
“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, part of the legal team representing Hencely.
The Court’s decision to review the case comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Hencely’s lawsuit, ruling that the “combatant-activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) barred his claims against Fluor. This exception was designed to prevent state regulation of U.S. military conduct and decision-making in combat zones. However, the critical question before the Court is whether private contractors can legitimately claim this same immunity intended for military operations.
Legal Battle Over Contractor Immunity
At the heart of this case lies a complex legal debate about the extent to which government contractors can be shielded from liability when operating in war zones. Hencely’s legal team argues that Congress never intended for private companies to enjoy the same protections as military personnel. They point to what they describe as a “3-1-1 circuit split” among lower courts regarding the application of the combatant-activities exception to contractors, demonstrating the need for Supreme Court clarification on this contentious issue.
“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,” Hencely’s petition states.
Fluor Corporation, represented by Covington & Burling LLP, firmly maintains that the Fourth Circuit reached the correct conclusion. The company argues that allowing such lawsuits would inappropriately subject military operations to varying state laws and potentially interfere with military decision-making. This position highlights the tension between ensuring accountability for contractors and maintaining the military’s operational effectiveness without civilian judicial interference in wartime operations.
“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 combat combatant-activities exception,'” Fluor stated in court documents.
Implications For Military Personnel And Contractors
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case carries significant implications for both military personnel and the private contractors that have become increasingly integral to American military operations worldwide. For decades, defense contractors have operated with substantial legal protection from lawsuits, creating what critics describe as an accountability vacuum when negligence occurs. A ruling in Hencely’s favor could fundamentally alter this landscape, providing injured service members with unprecedented legal recourse against contractors whose actions contribute to harm.
“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,” the Court noted in its unsigned order, with no justices dissenting from the decision to grant the petition.
The case, Hencely v. Fluor Corp., U.S., No. 24-924, is scheduled to be argued during the Court’s upcoming term. President Trump’s Supreme Court appointees will play a crucial role in determining whether private contractors can continue claiming immunity or must face greater accountability for their actions in conflict zones. For conservative supporters of our military personnel, this case represents a critical opportunity to ensure that those who serve our nation maintain their right to seek justice when private companies’ negligence contributes to their injuries.
