06/02/2025
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a pivotal case involving Army veteran Winston Hencely, who suffered severe injuries in a 2016 su***de bombing at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. Hencely alleges that defense contractor Fluor Corporation's negligence allowed the attack to occur. The Court's decision could redefine the extent to which military contractors are held accountable under state tort laws for actions in combat zones.
But the core issue is this: Should a private defense contractor be allowed to avoid responsibility when their internal failures, failures not arising from active combat, but from preventable procedural lapses, lead to injury or death?
This case may open the door to holding large defense firms accountable not merely for combat outcomes, but for failing to provide the basic duty of care owed to the very soldiers they are contracted to support. With billions of dollars flowing to contractors and an ever-expanding privatization of military functions, the ruling could reshape the limits of immunity and the rights of military personnel to pursue justice.
In his petition for certiorari, Hencely argued that the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning relied on a vague "brooding federal interest" and dangerously broad interpretations of contractor immunity. He insists that no statutory language in the FTCA was intended to shield contractors from being held accountable for negligent hiring, oversight, or operational failures that result in injury to U.S. service members.
Fluor, meanwhile, maintains that the circuits, including the Second, Third, Ninth, and D.C. have aligned in affirming that state law must give way to federal law when contractor conduct arises from military-directed combat operations.
A ruling in Hencely’s favor could carve out a legal pathway for other service members injured by contractor negligence, even in war zones, to hold those entities accountable in civil court.
At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, we have long advocated for service members’ rights to seek redress when injured, not only by hostile forces but also by those entrusted with their protection. While we are not involved in this case, we will be watching closely. Its outcome may set the tone for a new era of contractor accountability and .
Issue: Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orde...
