Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation
Docket number: 24-924
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argued: November 3, 2025
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Hencely v. Fluor Corporation is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 3, 2025, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns whether federal law preempts state tort law. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions 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?"[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[2]

    • Petitioner: Winston Tyler Hencely
      • Legal counsel: Tyler Green (Consovoy McCarthy PLLC), Frank Hyok Chang (Consovoy McCarthy PLLC)
    • Respondent: Fluor Corporation
      • Legal counsel: Mark W. Mosier (Covington & Burling, LLP)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez:

    “ 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.[3]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions 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?[3] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[4]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[5]

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[6]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-924 HENCELY V. FLUOR CORPORATION QP", June 2, 2025
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-924 Hencely v. Fluor Corporation" accessed June 10, 2025
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 3, 2025
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 3, 2025
    6. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Hencely_v._Fluor_Corporation&oldid=10685119"