Case Preview: Hencely v. Fluor | Battlefield Immunity Battle: When Contractors Breach and Soldiers Bleed
Case Preview: Hencely v. Fluor | Battlefield Immunity Battle: When Contractors Breach and Soldiers Bleed  
Podcast: SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions
Published On: Mon Oct 27 2025
Description: Hencely v. Fluor | Case No. 24-924 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?OverviewThis episode examines Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, a case that could dramatically reshape government contractor immunity law by determining whether the Supreme Court's narrow Boyle defense should be expanded to protect military contractors who breach their contracts and violate military orders during wartime operations.Episode RoadmapOpening: Constitutional Clash Over Contractor AccountabilityTragic 2016 terrorist attack at Bagram Airfield killing Army Staff Sergeant Ryan HencelySon's lawsuit against Fluor Corporation under South Carolina tort lawCore tension: contractor immunity versus accountability for contract violationsThe Factual FoundationAfghan national Nayeb's attack facilitated by Fluor's supervision failuresArmy investigation: Fluor's "lack of reasonable supervision" was "primary contributing factor"Army Contracting Command finding: Fluor "indisputably did not comply with key contractual requirements"Escort and supervision protocol violations despite clear contractual obligationsThe Legal Landscape: Boyle's Boundaries1988 Boyle decision: narrow three-part test for contractor immunityRequired contractor conformance to government specificationsCurrent case: contractor violated rather than followed government directionsCircuit split over extending Boyle beyond specification-following scenariosProcedural Journey Through the Courts2019 federal district court filing in South CarolinaPolitical question doctrine rejected - claims about "Fluor, not military decisions"Summary judgment for Fluor based on "uniquely federal interests" preemptionFourth Circuit affirmance despite acknowledging FTCA "does not apply to government contractors"Judge Heytens partial dissent noting factual disputes over military "command authority"The Constitutional QuestionFTCA combatant activities exception: governs suits against government, not contractorsArticle I war powers versus state tort law authoritySupremacy Clause analysis: when does federal interest preempt state law?Distinction between express congressional preemption and judicial policy-makingPetitioner's Three-Pronged AttackStatutory Argument: FTCA text addresses government suits, not contractor liabilityConstitutional Argument: Boyle violates Supremacy Clause through "freewheeling judicial inquiry"Factual Distinction: No immunity for contractors who breach contracts and violate ordersRespondent's Constitutional DefenseWar Powers: Exclusive federal authority over battlefield operationsFTCA Guidance: Combatant activities exception reflects congressional policy against battlefield tort liabilityBroad Immunity: Preemption regardless of contractor compliance with government directionsGovernment's Structural ArgumentConstitutional war powers create "uniquely federal interests"State tort regulation conflicts with exclusive federal battlefield...