Call Us Now
Email Us Now
In Hencely v. Fluor Corp. (decided April 22, 2026), the United States Supreme Court issued a significant 6-3 ruling that reinforces the rights of service members to hold private military contractors accountable for negligence. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas clarified that government contractors do not enjoy the same sovereign immunity as the United States military simply because they are operating in a combat zone. This decision preserves a vital legal pathway for veterans and active-duty personnel who suffer injuries due to contractor misconduct rather than the inherent risks of military operations.
The case originated from a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. Specialist Winston Hencely, who was severely injured in the blast, alleged that the contractor, Fluor Corp., was negligent in its security and screening protocols, allowing the bomber (a Fluor employee) to carry out the attack. Lower courts had previously dismissed the suit, applying a broad battlefield preemption doctrine. They reasoned that because the incident occurred in a theater of war, state-law tort claims were preempted by federal interests.
Justice Thomas’ opinion fundamentally rejected this blanket preemption approach. The Court held that while the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) shields the government from liability for combatant activities, this protection does not automatically extend to private entities. For a contractor to claim immunity, the challenged conduct must be fairly treated as the military’s own conduct or decision. In Hencely’s case, the Court found that the alleged negligence regarding employee screening and supervision did not require the judiciary to second-guess military strategy or command decisions, which is the core concern of the combatant-activities exception.
This ruling is a critical victory for accountability. For years, the political question and combatant activities doctrines have been used as a shield to dismiss lawsuits involving contractor negligence in logistics, maintenance, and security. By narrowing the scope of contractor immunity, the United States Supreme Court has signaled that government contractors do not get blanket immunity simply because they are working for the military in a war zone.
Rather, immunity depends on the specific facts—particularly whether the contractor was following precise military directives or exercising its own discretion. If a contractor is accused of acting outside the military’s orders—or failing to follow required procedures—there is no conflict with federal law, and the case can proceed.
For our veteran community, this decision provides much-needed clarity. It ensures that those who serve are not stripped of their right to seek redress when they are harmed by the failures of private corporations. While the military must remain free to make tactical decisions without the threat of litigation, private contractors must still answer for their own negligence. This distinction is essential for maintaining the standard of care that our service members deserve, even in the most dangerous environments. Put simply, the Hencely decision shows that injured service members are not automatically barred from bringing claims against private contractors—even in active war zones.
If you were injured while working for a private military contractor overseas, or if you are a service member harmed by contractor negligence, the legal landscape has shifted in your favor. Navigating the intersection of military law, the Defense Base Act, and third-party negligence requires a legal team that understands both the complexities of the courtroom and the realities of service. At West & Dunn, we leverage our deep roots in the veteran community and our experience in civil litigation to advocate for those harmed in the line of duty. Contact us today to discuss your case and ensure your rights are protected under this new standard of accountability.
