Supreme Court Decides Hencely v. Fluor Corp. et al.

On April 22, 2026, the US Supreme Court decided Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, No. 24-924, holding that federal law did not preempt an army specialist's negligent supervision and related state law tort claims against military contractor Fluor Corporation where the Federal Government neither ordered nor authorized Fluor's challenged conduct.

In 2016, Taliban operative and Fluor's employee, Ahmad Nayeb, carried out a suicide bomb attack at a US base in Afghanistan. Then-Army Specialist Hencely confronted Nayeb, was injured, and sued Fluor for damages, alleging state-law claims of negligent retention and supervision. Fluor claimed federal law preempted the suit. The district court granted summary judgment and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed. It held that nothing in the Constitution, federal statutory law, or the Court's case law supported preemption. The Court rejected Fluor and the Government's contention that the Constitution's structure implicitly preempts any suit against a military contractor operating in a combat zone, pointing to early precedents showing plaintiffs can enforce their legal rights violated during wartime. That Fluor was working for the Federal Government was irrelevant, because absent a federal statute, contractors "ordinarily have a constitutional defense only when the contractor is being sued precisely for accomplishing what the Federal Government requested."

Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) did not support preemption of all claims against contractors engaged in combatant activities under the military's command authority. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that pursuant to Boyle, in some areas "involving 'uniquely federal interests'" state law may be preempted where there is a significant conflict between federal policy and the operation of state law, or when the goals of federal legislation would be frustrated. But the Boyle doctrine is narrow and applies only where the Government has directed a contractor to do the very thing that is the subject of the claim. Here, Hencely sued Fluor for conduct that was not authorized by and was even contrary to federal military instructions. Consequently, the claims were not preempted.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh.