[24-924] Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

Nov 3, 2025

Guest

Mr. Gannon (Counsel for the United States)

Guest

Mr. Mosier (Counsel for Respondent Fluor Corporation)

Guest

Mr. Chang (Counsel for Petitioner)

Mr. Chang, counsel for the petitioner, argues that state tort claims should apply to military contractors, challenging the limits of federal preemption. Mr. Mosier from Fluor Corporation counters that uniquely federal interests in wartime activities necessitate preemption of such claims. Mr. Gannon represents the U.S. position, advocating for a test to determine when contractor claims may be preempted based on combat activities. The discussion delves into military supervision, constitutional arguments, and the implications of contractor liability in combat zones.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Books

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Constitution Is Not A Blank-Check For Preemption

The Constitution does not automatically preempt state tort claims against federal contractors.
Congress must speak to displace common-law remedies, and it has not barred soldiers from suing contractors here.

ADVICE

Use Boyle Narrowly Around Government Specs

Apply Boyle only where a contractor acted under precise government specifications.
If the contractor violated military instructions, state-law claims should survive under Boyle's framework.

INSIGHT

War-Making As A Core Federal Interest

Courts have treated 'uniquely federal interests' as an independent preemption branch.
War-making and combat operations sit at the core of that uniquely federal interest category.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

Justia · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Nov 3, 2025.

Petitioner: Winston Tyler Hencely.
Respondent: Fluor Corporation.

Advocates:

Frank H. Chang (for the Petitioner)
Mark W. Mosier (for the Respondents)
Curtis E. Gannon (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 2016, U.S. Army Specialist Winston Tyler Hencely was stationed at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel. Fluor Corporation held a Department of Defense contract to provide base life support services at Bagram, including vehicle maintenance and hazardous materials management. Under the military’s “Afghan First” counterinsurgency program, which aimed to develop the Afghan economy by employing local nationals, Fluor’s subcontractor hired Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan national. The Army sponsored Nayeb’s employment despite knowing he was a former Taliban member, viewing his hiring as a reintegration effort. Nayeb worked the night shift at the hazardous materials section of the non-tactical vehicle yard with limited supervision.

During his employment, Nayeb likely smuggled explosives onto the base and constructed an explosive vest while working alone, using base tools including a multimeter he had checked out despite not needing it for his assigned duties. On the morning of November 12, 2016, at the end of his shift, Nayeb was supposed to board a bus to be escorted off base. Instead, he lied about needing to attend a hazardous materials class and walked undetected for 53 minutes to an area near the starting line of a Veterans Day 5K race. When Hencely and others confronted him, Nayeb detonated his vest, killing himself and five others while severely wounding seventeen more, including Hencely. The Taliban claimed credit for the attack.

Hencely sued Fluor in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging negligent supervision, entrustment, and retention under South Carolina law, as well as breach of the government contract. The district court granted judgment to Fluor on all claims, holding that federal law preempted the state tort claims and that Hencely was not a third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the government contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Does Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, which immunized government contractors from liability under certain circumstances, extend to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?