The Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings on Wednesday, permitting U.S. Army veteran Winston Tyler Hencely to sue military contractor Fluor Corporation. The Court rejected a broad interpretation of 'battlefield preemption,' finding that contractors are not automatically shielded from liability for unauthorized actions in war zones.

Veteran's Lawsuit Revived

Winston Tyler Hencely suffered severe injuries, including a fractured skull and brain trauma, during a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by a Taliban operative who had previously been employed by Fluor Corporation.

Lower Courts Dismissed the Case

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had previously dismissed Hencely’s case, citing the legal principle of 'battlefield preemption.' This doctrine suggests state law claims related to combat activities should be blocked.

Supreme Court Rejects Broad Preemption

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned these rulings. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that military contractors are not automatically immune from liability, even while operating in active war zones.

Key Finding: Lack of Authorization

The Court emphasized that Fluor’s actions were neither ordered nor authorized by the Federal Government. In fact, the company’s conduct may have violated specific military instructions for operating on the base.

Dissenting Opinions

Justices Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Justice Alito argued that allowing state courts to regulate security arrangements on military bases in war zones would be a constitutional overreach.

Federal Authority in Wartime

The dissenting justices maintained that the Constitution grants exclusive war powers to the Federal Government and that state law should not intrude upon this domain. They expressed concern about state judges second-guessing military decisions.

Implications of the Ruling

The Court’s decision vacates the judgment of the Fourth Circuit, sending the case back for further proceedings. Hencely can now pursue his claims for damages. This ruling sets a precedent regarding the liability of military contractors and the balance between federal and state authority in national security matters.