Lisa N. Himes, Of Counsel at Rogers Joseph O’Donnell P.C., was interviewed by Federal News Network podcast host Terry Gerton on May 11, 2026, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 22, 2026 decision in Hencely v. Fluor Corp., 146 S. Ct. 1086 (2026), and its potential implications for government contractors. The interview can be accessed here.
Ms. Himes and ALF Executive Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence Ebner collaborated on a merits-stage amicus brief in the case. The amicus brief provided 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) are essential to U.S. military operations in overseas war zones. Ms. Himes and Mr. Ebner are former law partners who helped defend numerous “battlefield contractor” tort suits between 2003 and 2015.
During the interview, Himes examined the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling, which held that government contractors are not entitled to preemption under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant activities exception. The case stems from a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan involving an Afghan national employed by a Fluor subcontractor.
Himes explained that the ruling could significantly reshape how contractors approach work in combat environments. She noted that contractors may now face increased scrutiny over whether their actions are expressly authorized by the government, potentially affecting how contracts are structured and how operational directives are documented.
“The contractors are going to look at this, and I think there’s going to be an analysis of, are we doing things that are authorized by the federal government when we’re over and performing work in support of the government?” Himes said during the interview. “Because if we’re not, we’re more hesitant to take on the work.”
Himes also discussed the strong dissent authored by Justice Samuel Alito, which she said provides a roadmap for political question doctrine arguments in similar tort litigation. She noted that courts may increasingly confront questions involving military decision-making, operational strategy and the extent to which litigation could intrude into sensitive military matters.
During the conversation, Himes further addressed how the ruling may influence the Defense Department’s use of contractors in active combat zones and what legal and operational questions contractors and the government are likely to evaluate going forward.
