Have you been injured as a result of actions by a defense contractor? A recent U.S. Supreme Court case makes way for new lawsuits, setting a precedent for military members harmed due to actions by defense contractors.

In a 6-3 ruling in Hencely v. Fluor Corp., announced April 22, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that shielded a defense contractor from a negligence lawsuit brought by a former military member. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stated that a U.S. soldier may pursue a lawsuit accusing a defense contractor, in this case, Fluor Corporation, of not doing enough to protect him from a 2016 bombing attack in Afghanistan.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court case, in 2016, a Taliban operative working for Fluor Corp., a defense contractor, carried out a suicide-bomb attack at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. After then-Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely confronted him, the bomber detonated his suicide vest.

The attack killed the bomber and five others, and wounded 17 more, including Hencely. As a result of the injuries he received, Hencely is now permanently disabled. In an effort to recover damages for his injuries, Hencely sued Fluor Corp., bringing state-law tort claims for negligently retaining and supervising the attacker. According to Hencely and the U.S. military, Fluor Corp.’s conduct was not authorized by the military and even violated instructions the military had given it as a condition of operating on the base, the U.S. Supreme Court decision states.

Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

Hencely originally sued Fluor Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, in which he claimed negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention under South Carolina law, in addition to a breach of the government contract.

The district court granted summary judgment to Fluor Corporation, holding that the state law tort claims were preempted by federal law. Hencely then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the South Carolina court’s decision, relying on its version of the “battlefield preemption” doctrine, according to the so-called government contractor defense precedent set in Boyle v. United Technology Corporation.

On appeal, in 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court determined the Fourth Circuit improperly concluded that the combatant activities exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act barred Hencely’s suit against alleged negligence by the Fluor Corporation. The aim of the exception is to preclude state regulation regarding U.S. military conduct and decisions.

Further, the government required the Fluor Corporation to hire Afghan employees. But it didn’t, as Hencely alleges, requiring the Fluor Corporation to leave the attacker unsupervised or allow him to access to tools with which he could build a bomb.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the suit should move forward because “no statute or constitutional provision expressly” preempts the military member’s lawsuit. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit “erred in finding Hencely’s state-law tort claims preempted where the [f]ederal [g]overnment neither ordered nor authorized Fluor’s challenged conduct,” the U.S. Supreme Court decision states.

Government Contractor Defense: When Does It Apply?

Government contractors are likely familiar with the so-called “government contractor defense” that can limit liability for work performed under a federal contract. The defense is often referenced via two previous U.S. Supreme Court cases, Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. (Boyle) (as mentioned above) and Yearsley v. AW.A. Ross Construction Co. (Yearsley). However, neither argument provides grounds for rejecting preemption, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fluor states.

In Boyle, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a defense contractor was immune from a suit claiming that an allegedly defective helicopter design caused a crash that killed a copilot, and therefore determined that Boyle, which was relied upon by the lower court, doesn’t support the Fourth Circuit’s preemption rule, because Boyle involved a special circumstance where the government directed a contractor to do the very thing that was subject to a lawsuit.

The Supreme Court also determined that, based on the Yearsley decision, in what is called the “Yearsley doctrine,” a contractor is shielded only when it is being sued precisely for accomplishing what the federal government requested, the Court’s opinion states, referencing a longtime legal framework derived from the 1940 case.⁠⁠ The Court in 1940 rejected “an attempt by a landowner to hold a construction contractor liable under state law” for eroding land in the course of constructing dikes for the Government,” the U.S. Supreme Court decision states.

Because the Fluor Corporation’s negligence involved conduct the Army did not authorize and had, according to investigators, actually prohibited, the Yearsley doctrine did not apply to Hencely’s case, according to the decision.

Taking Action and Moving Forward With Lawsuits Against Defense Contractors

The recent ruling in Hencely v. Fluor Corp. sets a precedent for military members harmed due to actions by defense contractors.
Military members injured as a result of actions by defense contractors should be aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has now, in Hencely v. Fluor Corp., clarified how the doctrines in previous cases Boyle and Yearsley apply to suits against defense contractors. Defense contractors also should know that having a federal contract, even in a combat zone, may not be enough to shield a defense contractor from liability when military members are injured.

The military law attorneys at Tully Rinckey PLLC were servicemen and women long before they became lawyers. They know the military, they know the law, and they are ready to fight hard on your behalf. If you have additional questions, our team of dedicated military law attorneys is available to assist you today. Please call 8885294543 to schedule a consultation, or schedule a consultation online.

Sean C. Timmons’ years of experience as an active-duty U.S. Army Captain in the selective and prestigious U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps are a valuable asset to Tully Rinckey PLLC’s military law practice group. An aggressive and tenacious advocate for all service members facing legal issues, Sean is able to pull from his significant and diverse experience as an active-duty attorney in the Army JAG Corps, and as a civilian military law attorney, and forcefully and efficiently represent service members in both administrative and criminal proceedings across the United States and around the world.