Hencely v. Fluor Corporation
Definition
A United States Supreme Court case (Docket No. 24-924, decided April 22, 2026) in which the Court held that state-law tort claims against a military contractor for negligent supervision, entrustment, and retention are not preempted by federal law when the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct.
The case arose from an incident at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan where U.S. Army Specialist Winston Hencely was severely injured by a suicide bomb detonated by Ahmad Nayeb, a Taliban-affiliated Afghan employee hired by Fluor Corporation's subcontractor, due to Fluor's alleged failure to supervise him properly in violation of contract and base security rules.
Written by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson), the majority rejected the Fourth Circuit's 'battlefield preemption' doctrine, distinguishing it from Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. and emphasizing no significant conflict with federal interests exists for unauthorized negligence.
Examples
Law students parsing Hencely v. Fluor Corporation discovered that contractor negligence in war zones isn't automatically cloaked in federal immunity.
After Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, military contractors might start hiring supervisors with hawk-like eyes instead of subcontractors with shady pasts.
In torts class, the professor quipped that Hencely v. Fluor Corporation proved even billion-dollar firms can't subcontract away basic duty of care.
Citing Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, the plaintiff's attorney argued Fluor's vetting process was about as effective as a screen door on a Taliban outpost.