Supreme Court clears way for wounded veteran to sue over suicide bombing

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Wednesday in favor of former Army Specialist Winston Hencely, allowing him to proceed with a lawsuit against government contractor Fluor Corporation following a 2016 suicide bombing in Afghanistan that left him severely injured.

The case stems from a tragic Veterans Day weekend attack at Bagram Airfield, where Hencely confronted Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan employee of Fluor, who was attempting to detonate an explosive vest at a 5K race. When stopped, Nayeb immediately detonated the device, killing five people and wounding more than a dozen others.

Hencely suffered catastrophic injuries in the explosion. Court documents detail how projectiles fractured his skull and tore through his brain, leaving him without full use of much of the left side of his body. He continues to suffer from abnormal brainwaves, seizures, and traumatic brain injury.

An Army investigation later determined that Fluor had failed to properly supervise Nayeb, who constructed the explosive vest while on the job site inside the base. This finding became the foundation for Hencely’s legal action against the company.

The veteran filed his lawsuit in South Carolina, where two of Fluor’s subsidiaries are headquartered. His claims center on negligent supervision, negligent entrustment of tools, and negligent retention of an employee under state law.

Irving, Texas-based Fluor Corporation, a major engineering construction company with extensive government contracts, attempted to shield itself from liability by arguing that it was operating during wartime for the federal government, which typically enjoys immunity from such lawsuits.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, explained that while companies are protected when fulfilling government contracts as directed, that protection doesn’t extend to alleged failures in carrying out basic supervisory duties. The majority opinion held that Fluor’s alleged negligence in monitoring Nayeb fell outside the scope of governmental immunity protections.

The 6-3 decision featured an ideologically diverse majority, with Justices Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson ruling in Hencely’s favor.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in dissent. Writing for the minority, Alito expressed concern that Hencely’s lawsuit could interfere with the government’s wartime powers and decision-making, including policies that required contractors to maximize employment of Afghan nationals during U.S. operations in the country.

The ruling represents a significant victory for military personnel seeking legal recourse against government contractors for alleged negligence in conflict zones. It establishes that contractors cannot always claim immunity when their employees cause harm, particularly when that harm stems from alleged failures in basic supervision and security protocols.

For Fluor Corporation, which has numerous contracts with the U.S. government for projects worldwide, the decision creates potential exposure to similar claims. The company will now have to defend itself against Hencely’s allegations in South Carolina courts.

The case also highlights the complex relationship between the military, private contractors, and host nation employees in war zones. U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq relied heavily on contractors who employed tens of thousands of local nationals, creating security challenges that this case brings into sharp focus.

With the Supreme Court’s decision clearing the path forward, Hencely’s lawsuit will now return to lower courts where the merits of his specific claims against Fluor will be evaluated. The outcome could potentially influence how government contractors approach security protocols and employee supervision in conflict areas around the world.