Hencely v. Fluor
No. 24-924 · October Term 2025 · Economic Activity · decided April 22, 2026
Decided: Hencely won 6-3. The model was right.
Expected vote 5–4 for Hencely. Chance of a unanimous ruling 38%. FantasySCOTUS crowd: 64% Hencely.
The case
Former U.S. Army Specialist Winston Hencely is suing government contractor Fluor Corporation for negligence under South Carolina law after a suicide bomber, an employee of Fluor, critically injured him at Bagram Airfield. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hencely's state law claims are preempted by federal interests, extending the reach of an exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Supreme Court must decide whether this extension of federal preemption to state tort claims against a government contractor, based on the FTCA's combatant-activities exception, is appropriate when the contractor's conduct breached its contract and violated military orders.
- Does the Federal Tort Claims Act's combatant-activities exception, which immunizes the government, also preempt state tort claims against a government contractor?
- How far does the precedent set in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. extend regarding federal preemption of state law claims against government contractors?
- What is the balance between state tort law remedies for injured individuals and federal interests in military operations and contractor immunity?
- Does a government contractor's breach of contract and violation of military orders affect the applicability of federal preemption in such cases?
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Former U.S. Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely was critically and permanently injured by a suicide bomber inside Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The bomber, Ahmad Nayeb, worked on base for a government contractor. An Army investigation found that the attack's primary contributing factor was the contractor's actions in breach of its Army contract and in violation of the military's instructions to supervise Nayeb. Hencely sued the government contractor for negligence under South Carolina law. He did not sue the military under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Even so, the Fourth Circuit held that Hencely's state claims are preempted by unspoken "federal interests" emanating from an FTCA exception. Invoking Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the court of appeals held that the FTCA's exception immunizing the government for "[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces ... during time of war," 28 U.S.C. §2680(j), barred Hencely's South Carolina claims against the contractor . The decision below reaffirmed a 3-1-1 split among the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits over Boyle 's reach when contractors defend against state tort claims by invoking §2680(j). The question presented is: 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?
Facts of the case (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.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Economic Activity cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument | Voted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes the importance of clear statutory text and has shown a willingness to limit the expansion of implied federal preemption, which could lead him to scrutinize the Fourth Circuit's extension of Boyle. | 56% Hencely | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 68% Economic Activity · 328 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | 8 / 18 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Fluor ✗ |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas generally favors a strict interpretation of federal statutes and a limited view of federal common law, which might make him hesitant to expand federal preemption beyond explicit congressional intent or well-established federal interests. | 56% Hencely | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 62% Economic Activity · 555 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | 5 / 14 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Hencely ✓ |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito has often supported strong federal interests, particularly in matters of national security and military operations, which could lead him to consider the implications of allowing state tort claims to proceed against military contractors. | 52% Fluor | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 67% Economic Activity · 322 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | 23 / 14 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Fluor ✓ |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often emphasizes the importance of access to justice and remedies for injured parties, which could lead her to question broad applications of federal preemption that might leave individuals without recourse. | 56% Hencely | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Economic Activity · 264 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | 18 / 11 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Hencely ✓ |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan tends to favor a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation and has shown a willingness to consider the practical implications of legal rules, which could lead her to carefully weigh the policy arguments for and against extending Boyle. | 59% Hencely | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 59% Economic Activity · 249 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | 1 / 10 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Hencely ✓ |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a proponent of textualism and has often expressed skepticism about judicial creation of federal common law or implied preemption, suggesting he might be inclined to limit the reach of Boyle and protect state law remedies. | 69% Hencely | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 60% Economic Activity · 141 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | 1 / 13 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Hencely ✓ |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh has often sided with the government and government contractors in cases involving national security or military operations, and he may be inclined to support a broader application of federal preemption to protect these interests. | 61% Fluor | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 68% Economic Activity · 123 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | 36 / 31 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Fluor ✓ |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett often focuses on originalism and textualism, which could lead her to a careful examination of the statutory language of the FTCA and the Boyle precedent, potentially limiting its extension to new contexts. | 56% Hencely | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 65% Economic Activity · 85 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | 17 / 18 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Hencely ✓ |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the real-world impact of legal decisions and has shown an interest in ensuring that individuals have avenues for redress, which could lead her to scrutinize arguments for broad federal preemption. | 50% Hencely | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 55% Economic Activity · 62 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | 13 / 11 questions at Hencely / Fluor | Hencely ✗ |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.