Supreme Court Limits Preemption for Military Contractors in Hencely Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that negligence claims against military contractors are not broadly preempted.
Why it matters: This decision narrows federal preemption, opening the door for more state negligence claims to proceed against contractors. It could influence defense strategies in product liability and drug/device litigation, where preemption is often contested.
- Court ruled April 22, 2026, in Hencely v. Fluor Corp., overturning lower court preemption findings.
- ‘Battlefield preemption’ does not apply if the contractor's actions weren’t required or authorized by the government.
- Majority opinion held that state claims stand unless the federal government directed the contractor’s conduct.
- The ruling may affect ongoing debates about federal preemption in product liability litigation, including drugs and devices.
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 22, 2026, issued a 6-3 decision in Hencely v. Fluor Corp., holding that state-law negligence claims against military contractors are not preempted when the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the specific conduct at issue.
- The case stemmed from a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, where a local employee of Fluor Corporation killed five and injured 17, including Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely.
- The Army investigation found Fluor primarily responsible due to negligent supervision of the bomber, who was linked to the Taliban.
- Hencely sued Fluor for negligent supervision and retention under South Carolina law. Earlier lower courts applied the 'battlefield preemption' doctrine and found in Fluor's favor.
- The Supreme Court, however, reversed, holding that "the Federal Government neither ordered nor authorized Fluor’s challenged conduct," and thus, preemption was inappropriate (opinion).
- Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, clarified that federal preemption is not automatic for military contractors unless their conduct was compelled by federal direction. Justice Alito's dissent warned of state overreach into war-related decisions.
Legal analysts note that the ruling may embolden plaintiffs to challenge preemption defenses more broadly, including in ongoing glyphosate, pharmaceutical, and medical device litigation. While the direct impact on these areas isn’t fully clear, the Hencely decision marks a significant shift in how courts will approach the federal preemption doctrine in contractor liability and tort claims (analysis).
By the numbers:
- 6-3 — Supreme Court ruling split in Hencely v. Fluor Corp.
- 5 killed, 17 injured — Casualties in the Bagram Airfield attack
- April 22, 2026 — Date of Supreme Court decision
Yes, but: The ruling's direct impact on ongoing drug and device litigation is still uncertain, and potential increases in contractor liability remain to be seen.