Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on Hencely v. Fluor Corp. could strip defense contractors of immunity protections that have shielded them from negligence lawsuits by injured military personnel, potentially redefining accountability for American soldiers in combat zones.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will hear former Army Specialist Winston Hencely’s lawsuit against Fluor Corp. regarding a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield that left him permanently injured.
- The Court’s decision will clarify when defense contractors lose immunity protections under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception.
- The case highlights a significant “3-1-1 circuit split” in lower courts about contractor liability in military settings.
- A ruling in Hencely’s favor could dramatically shift accountability standards for defense contractors operating in war zones.
- The unanimous decision to hear the case indicates the Supreme Court recognizes its national importance for military personnel and contractors.
A Soldier’s Fight for Justice
When former Army Specialist Winston Hencely suffered devastating injuries during a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, his life changed forever. The attack, which killed six people and injured 17 others, was allegedly carried out by an individual employed by defense contractor Fluor Corporation. Rather than accept his fate, Hencely has taken his fight to the highest court in the land, challenging the blanket immunity that has long protected defense contractors from negligence claims by military personnel injured in combat zones.
“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, one of the law firms representing Hencely.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case represents a potential watershed moment for military accountability. Under President Trump’s leadership, questions about contractor responsibility have gained increased importance as the administration works to ensure our brave servicemen and women receive the protection and compensation they deserve when injured due to negligence. This case could potentially redefine how we protect our troops from contractor negligence while deployed overseas.
The Legal Battleground
At the heart of this case lies the combatant-activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which traditionally shields the government from lawsuits related to combat activities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit previously ruled this exception barred Hencely’s lawsuit, extending government immunity to Fluor as a contractor. However, Hencely’s legal team argues this interpretation goes beyond what Congress intended, creating an improper shield for negligent contractors.
“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 argues in court filings.
This legal clash highlights a significant divide among federal courts. Hencely’s petition points to a “3-1-1 circuit split” regarding how the combatant-activities exception should apply to contractors. This inconsistency across jurisdictions creates unequal justice for injured military personnel based simply on where their cases are heard. The Supreme Court’s willingness to take this case signals recognition of the need for clarity on this critical issue affecting our military veterans.
Defense Contractor Pushback
Fluor Corporation isn’t backing down, maintaining that the Fourth Circuit correctly interpreted the law. The company argues that allowing such lawsuits would inappropriately subject military operations to state law standards, potentially interfering with military decisions and burdening combat operations with civilian legal concerns. Contractors have long relied on this immunity to operate in dangerous environments while supporting American military 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,'” Fluor stated in its legal filing.
The company, represented by Covington & Burling LLP, argues that extending liability to contractors in war zones would create substantial operational challenges and potentially increase costs for the military. However, critics counter that this immunity has created a dangerous accountability gap, allowing negligent contractors to escape responsibility for preventable harm to American soldiers. This tension between operational necessity and accountability lies at the core of the Supreme Court’s upcoming deliberations.
National Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for military operations, defense contractors, and injured service members. If the Court sides with Hencely, it could establish new standards for contractor negligence in military settings, potentially opening the door for similar lawsuits from other injured military personnel. This would represent a significant shift in how we balance military necessity with protections for individual soldiers.
“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 Supreme Court stated in its unsigned order, with no justices dissenting from the decision to hear the case.
The unanimous decision to hear this case underscores its national importance. As defense contractors continue to play an expanding role in American military operations worldwide, establishing clear standards for accountability becomes increasingly vital. The Trump administration has consistently advocated for stronger protections for our military personnel, and this case represents an opportunity to ensure that contractors are held to appropriate standards when their negligence endangers American lives.
