Hencely v. Fluor Corporation
Petitioner Winston Tyler Hencely · Respondent Fluor Corporation
- Reporter
- 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
- From
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- How it got here
- writ of <i>certiorari</i>
Does Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, which immunized government contractors from liability under certain circumstances, extend to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?
Question before the CourtWhat happened
In 2016, U.S. Army Specialist Winston Tyler Hencely was stationed at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel. Fluor Corporation held a Department of Defense contract to provide base life support services at Bagram, including vehicle maintenance and hazardous materials management. Under the military’s “Afghan First” counterinsurgency program, which aimed to develop the Afghan economy by employing local nationals, Fluor’s subcontractor hired Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan national. The Army sponsored Nayeb’s employment despite knowing he was a former Taliban member, viewing his hiring as a reintegration effort. Nayeb worked the night shift at the hazardous materials section of the non-tactical vehicle yard with limited supervision. During his employment, Nayeb likely smuggled explosives onto the base and constructed an explosive vest while working alone, using base tools including a multimeter he had checked out despite not needing it for his assigned duties. On the morning of November 12, 2016, at the end of his shift, Nayeb was supposed to board a bus to be escorted off base. Instead, he lied about needing to attend a hazardous materials class and walked undetected for 53 minutes to an area near the starting line of a Veterans Day 5K race. When Hencely and others confronted him, Nayeb detonated his vest, killing himself and five others while severely wounding seventeen more, including Hencely. The Taliban claimed credit for the attack. Hencely sued Fluor in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging negligent supervision, entrustment, and retention under South Carolina law, as well as breach of the government contract. The district court granted judgment to Fluor on all claims, holding that federal law preempted the state tort claims and that Hencely was not a third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the government contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Cross-aisle coalition.
The split did not track the usual ideological lines — justices from both wings landed on the same side.
The opinions 2
Clarence Thomas
Joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Jackson, and Barrett.
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh.
The holding
State-law tort claims against military contractors are not preempted—meaning federal law does not override them—if the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the specific conduct that caused the injury. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 majority opinion. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution requires state law to yield to federal law only when a clear conflict exists. No federal statute or constitutional provision expressly bars personal injury lawsuits against private companies operating in war zones. While the Federal Tort Claims Act—the law governing lawsuits against the government—protects the military from liability for “combatant activities,” this protection does not automatically extend to private contractors. A contractor only shares the government’s sovereign immunity (the legal doctrine protecting the government from being sued without its consent) when it strictly follows specific government orders. Because the contractor in this case allegedly violated the military’s safety and supervision instructions, there is no “significant conflict” between state law and federal policy. The Constitution’s grant of war powers to the President and Congress does not create a blanket immunity for all activities occurring in a combat zone. Historically, courts have allowed plaintiffs to sue for damages arising from wartime conduct if that conduct exceeded legal or military authority. Furthermore, private contractors do not become federal agencies simply by performing services for the military. Without a specific law from Congress granting immunity, states retain their ordinary power to regulate private companies through tort law. Therefore, a lawsuit can proceed when it challenges a contractor’s failure to meet its own contractual and safety obligations. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, arguing that the Constitution’s grant of war powers to the federal government implicitly bars state-law suits that interfere with military security and strategic policy in a combat zone.
Argued by
- Frank H. Chang for the Petitioner
- Mark W. Mosier for the Respondents
- Curtis E. Gannon for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents
Case path
- Jun 2, 2025 granted
- Nov 3, 2025 argued
- Apr 22, 2026 decided