Winston Tyler Hencely, Petitioner v. Fluor Corporation, et al.

The Court said state tort claims against a military contractor can be blocked during wartime when the challenged conduct arose under military command out of combat activities. That means Hencely could not avoid that rule simply by arguing Fluor breached its contract and violated military orders.

The Court ruled that wartime state-law claims against military contractors under military command can be preempted, but the vote count and opinion lineup are not provided here.

Majority

Thomas

Sotomayor

Kagan

Jackson

Barrett

Dissent

Roberts

Alito

Kavanaugh

The decision gives military contractors a stronger shield against some state tort suits tied to wartime operations. For example, a contractor working with U.S. forces overseas can now more forcefully argue that federal wartime policy, not state tort law, controls.

Lower courts now must apply the Supreme Court's rule to Hencely's case and any similar suits still in the pipeline. Future fights will likely focus on whether a contractor's conduct was truly under military command and connected to combat activities.

The case asked whether federal wartime rules block state tort claims against Fluor. Hencely argued Fluor lost that protection by breaching its contract and military orders.

Military contractors and people suing them over wartime conduct are most affected. Contractors now have a stronger argument against state tort claims tied to combat-related operations.

Lower courts must apply the Court's rule to this case and similar disputes. Future litigation will test whether the challenged conduct was under military command and combat-related.