Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 2 Jun 2025

Former U.S. Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely was critically and permanently injured by a suicide bomber inside Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The bomber, Ahmad Nayeb, worked on base for a government contractor. An Army investigation found that the attack's primary contributing factor was the contractor's actions in breach of its Army contract and in violation of the military's instructions to supervise Nayeb. Hencely sued the government contractor for negligence under South Carolina law. He did not sue the military under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Even so, the Fourth Circuit held that Hencely's state claims are preempted by unspoken "federal interests" emanating from an FTCA exception. Invoking Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the court of appeals held that the FTCA's exception immunizing the government for "[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces ... during time of war," 28 U.S.C. §2680(j), barred Hencely's South Carolina claims against the contractor. The decision below reaffirmed a 3-1-1 split among the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits over Boyle's reach when contractors defend against state tort claims by invoking §2680(j). The question presented is: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

A former Army specialist sued Fluor under South Carolina tort law after a Taliban operative working for the contractor carried out a suicide attack at Bagram Airfield and injured him. The question was whether those claims were preempted because the contractor was operating in a war zone and under military command. Justice Thomas wrote that they were not. The Court said no constitutional provision or federal statute expressly preempts the suit, and the FTCA combatant-activities exception does not itself bar suits against contractors. The Court also held that Boyle does not support a broad rule of battlefield preemption. Boyle applies only when there is a significant conflict between state law and an identifiable federal interest, especially when the Government directed the contractor to do the challenged act. Here, the alleged negligence was not authorized by the military and was said to violate military instructions. Because the Government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh. He argued that the Constitution’s structure can itself preempt state law when state tort rules intrude on the Federal Government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs and war. He said the war powers belong to the national government alone and that state law should not be allowed to interfere with wartime policy or military operations overseas. He relied on preemption cases involving foreign affairs and argued that battlefield activities are especially inappropriate for state regulation. In his view, the Court should have upheld preemption here even if the military did not expressly require or authorize the contractor’s precise conduct.