The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Wednesday to allow a lawsuit by a veteran injured in a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan to proceed against military contractor Fluor Corporation. The decision overturned a lower court ruling that had dismissed the case, finding that federal law does not shield contractors from liability for negligence in combat zones.
Core Facts
The case centers on Winston Tyler Hencely, a former Army specialist who was permanently disabled when a Taliban operative working for Fluor detonated a suicide vest. Hencely sued Fluor under state law, alleging negligence in hiring and supervising the attacker, Ahmad Nayeb. The contractor argued that federal law preempted the lawsuit, but the Supreme Court disagreed.
Legal Ruling
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that federal contractors do not automatically share the government’s immunity. The majority opinion was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, argued that the Constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority over war-related matters, preempting state lawsuits.
Background and Context
The bombing occurred during a Veterans Day 5K race at Bagram Airfield, killing five people and wounding 17. Hencely confronted Nayeb before the attack, likely preventing greater casualties. An Army investigation found Fluor negligent in hiring and supervising Nayeb, who had Taliban ties. The case raised questions about the liability of private contractors operating in war zones.
Implications
The ruling clarifies that military contractors can be held accountable under state law for negligence, even in combat zones, unless their actions were specifically authorized by the federal government. The decision may have broader implications for future lawsuits involving contractors in conflict areas.