Oral Argument Re-Listen: Hencely v. Fluor | Orders Ignored, Immunity Denied?

Hencely v. Fluor Corp. | Case No. 24-924 | Decided April 22, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether federal law preempts state tort claims against military contractors for unauthorized conduct violating military instructions.

Overview: Supreme Court narrows military contractor immunity, ruling contractors face state tort liability when they violate rather than follow government orders during wartime operations.

Posture: Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for contractor based on federal preemption.

Holding: The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in finding Winston Hencely’s state-law tort claims preempted where the Federal Government neither ordered nor authorized Fluor Corporation’s challenged conduct.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3 decision vacated Fourth Circuit judgment. Justice Thomas authored majority opinion joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson.

Majority Reasoning: (1) Neither Constitution nor federal statute expressly preempts tort suits against contractors who violate military instructions; (2) Boyle doctrine protects contractors only when they conform to government specifications, not when they breach obligations; (3) Federal preemption requires actual conflict with federal law, not judicial speculation about federal interests.

Separate Opinions:

• Justice Alito (dissenting, joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh): Constitution's war powers exclusively assign military authority to federal government; state regulation of combat zone security arrangements violates structural separation of powers and encroaches on federal military domain.

Opinion: Here

Implications: Military contractors lose blanket wartime immunity and face state tort liability when violating military instructions. Military families gain clearer accountability paths through state courts. Contractors must strengthen compliance with military supervision requirements to avoid potential liability. Decision reinforces targeted conflict preemption over broad field preemption doctrine.

The Fine Print:

• Federal Tort Claims Act § 2680(j): Preserves government immunity for "any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war"
• Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2: Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties constitute "the supreme Law of the Land" requiring state law to yield when conflicting with federal directives

Primary Cases:

• Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. (1988): Federal preemption protects military contractors only when they conform to government specifications and follow precise government directions
• Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. (1940): Contractors receive constitutional immunity only when sued precisely for accomplishing what Federal Government requested under valid authority

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (Hencely): Frank H. Chang, Arlington, Virginia argues for Petitioner Hencely.
• For Respondent (Fluor): Mark W. Mosier, Washington, D.C.
• For United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.