ALF Argues That Federal Law Precludes Tort Suits Against U.S. Military “Battlefield Contractors”
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Hencely v. Fluor Corp. (24-924) to decide whether federal law precludes a state-law personal injury suit arising out of a 2016 suicide-bombing on Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The plaintiff, a U.S. service member injured in the bombing, is suing Fluor Corp., a private contractor that provided essential support services to the U.S. military on that base. The suicide bombing was carried out by an Afghan national employed by a Fluor subcontractor.
Fluor contends that federal law preempts the plaintiff’s state-law tort claims because they interfere with uniquely federal interests relating to the conduct of U.S. military combat operations in an active war zone. More specifically, Fluor argues that the “combatant activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s general waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j), provides a preemptive, combatant activity-related decisional rule for third-party tort suits againt U.S. military support contractors. That exception preserves the federal government’s immunity from suit with respect to “[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war.” A South Carolina district court dismissed the suit on federal preemption grounds, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
ALF has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to affirm the Fourth Circuit’s judgment. The brief was authored by Lisa Norrett Himes of Rogers Joseph O’Donnell. ALF Executive Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence Ebner is co-counsel on the brief. While partners at their former firm, Ms. Himes and Mr. Ebner worked closely together defending against other battlefield-contractor tort suits.
Issue Areas:
Case:
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, et al. (24-924) (Supreme Court) (merits)
Read the Amicus Brief:
Question(s) Presented:
Whether, consistent with the federal government’s exclusive authority to make war, a state may impose its tort law on private contractors for claims arising out of combatant activities on a foreign battlefield.
ALF’s Amicus Brief:
ALF’s amicus brief provides the Court with additional perspective on why state-law tort claims against U.S. military support contractors engaged in “combatant activities” (i.e., mission-critical support services such as base construction, facilities administration, and hazardous materials management) clash with the uniquely federal interests embodied by the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant activities exception and other federal statutes such as the Veterans Benefits Act. Equally important, such suits interfere with the U.S military’s ability to enlist the support of contractors such as Fluor in ultra-hazardous overseas war zones. Such contractors are essential to the conduct of U.S. military combat operations.
Contact:
Email ALF Executive Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence Ebner.
Date Originally Posted: September 22, 2025