Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

Background

Winston Hencely, a former Army specialist, was severely injured when an Afghan contractor who had ties to the Taliban detonated a suicide vest at Bagram Airfield. The bomber had been employed under a military “Afghan First” hiring policy. The Army’s investigation found that the contractor’s employer, Fluor Corporation, a private military contractor, failed to supervise him, allowed him access to tools, and violated base escort and badge rules. Hencely sued under South Carolina law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention. Lower courts granted Fluor summary judgment under a Fourth Circuit rule treating wartime, combat-related claims against contractors as blocked by federal interests.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether state-law tort claims are blocked by federal law when the Government did not order or approve the contractor’s actions. The majority said no. It found no constitutional provision or federal statute that expressly blocks these suits. It explained that a prior case limiting liability for contractors applied only when the Government had directed the contractor to do the exact challenged act. Because the Army concluded Fluor violated its duties and did not authorize the harmful conduct, the Court held state law can apply. The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit decision and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The ruling means injured people can pursue state-law claims against military contractors who allegedly disobeyed military rules and caused harm. It narrows a broad wartime immunity defense for contractors but does not decide who ultimately wins on the facts. The judgment simply restores the injured soldier’s ability to proceed in court.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent warned that allowing state lawsuits could interfere with national war powers, raise sensitive discovery and choice-of-law problems, and burden military operations.