The Supreme Court will decide if a gravely wounded U.S. soldier can hold military contractors accountable for negligence after a devastating suicide bombing in Afghanistan that changed his life forever.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has agreed to review Hencely v. Fluor Corp., a case that could redefine legal accountability for military contractors in combat zones.
- Army Specialist Winston Hencely is seeking to sue Fluor Corporation after sustaining severe injuries in a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan that killed six people and injured 17.
- Lower courts dismissed Hencely’s lawsuit, ruling that the “combatant-activities exception” shields contractors from liability, creating a contentious legal precedent.
- The case highlights a significant “3-1-1 circuit split” among federal courts on whether military contractors can claim immunity under federal law.
- The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will have far-reaching implications for wounded veterans’ rights and contractors’ legal responsibilities in war zones.
A Soldier’s Fight for Justice
The case of Hencely v. Fluor Corp. represents a critical juncture in determining whether American soldiers can hold military contractors accountable for negligence in combat zones. Army Specialist Winston Hencely suffered life-altering injuries during a 2016 suicide bombing at Afghanistan’s Bagram Airfield, an attack that claimed six lives and wounded 17 others. The bomber was reportedly associated with Fluor Corporation, the defense contractor responsible for various operations at the base. Hencely alleges that Fluor’s negligence directly contributed to the devastating attack, raising profound questions about contractor accountability in military operations.
“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,” said Butler Prather LLP, one of the law firms representing Hencely.
Legal Battleground: The Combatant-Activities Exception
At the heart of this case lies the “combatant-activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a provision originally designed to prevent state regulation of U.S. military conduct and decisions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit previously ruled that this exception barred Hencely’s lawsuit against Fluor, effectively granting the contractor immunity from legal action. This decision exemplifies the ongoing tension between providing legal remedies for injured service members and respecting the unique operational demands of military engagements in hostile territories.
“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 in its defense.
Circuit Split Creates Legal Uncertainty
Hencely’s petition to the Supreme Court highlighted a significant “3-1-1 circuit split” among federal courts regarding the application of the combatant-activities exception to military contractors. This legal discord creates uncertainty about when contractors can be held accountable for negligence in combat zones. Some circuits have granted broad immunity, while others have recognized limitations to contractor protections. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case without dissent signals the justices’ recognition of the need to establish a clear, nationwide standard 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,” argued Hencely in his petition.
Implications for Military-Contractor Relations
President Trump’s administration has consistently advocated for stronger protections and support for American service members. This case presents a critical opportunity to balance the operational necessities of military engagements with the fundamental right of wounded veterans to seek legal redress when contractor negligence results in harm. The Supreme Court’s ruling will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of military-contractor relationships, potentially establishing clearer boundaries of accountability for contractors operating in war zones and determining whether injured soldiers can access the justice system 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,” noted the Supreme Court in its unsigned order.
