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

The Court is reviewing whether Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, can be sued for state-law claims after a 2016 incident at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The case centers on whether contractors are immune from lawsuits when they are integrated into combat operations, even if they allegedly violated military orders and their own contracts.

The ruling will determine if injured service members or others can hold private companies accountable for negligence during war. If the Court grants broad immunity, it could prevent many future lawsuits against companies that provide essential support services to the U.S. military.

This case tests the limits of the Boyle rule, a legal doctrine that protects government contractors from liability in certain situations. It explores the balance between protecting the military's mission and ensuring that private companies follow the rules and contracts they signed.

During oral arguments, the discussion focused on whether immunity should apply when a contractor is accused of breaching its contract and ignoring military orders. The parties debated if the contractor's integration into combat operations is enough to block state-law tort (civil wrong) claims.

The Supreme Court must decide if private contractors lose their legal shield when they fail to follow military orders or contract terms.

The Court has heard oral arguments and is now drafting a written opinion. A final decision is expected by the end of the term in June 2026.

The dispute is over whether Fluor can be sued for its actions at Bagram Airfield. Hencely argues the company violated military orders and its contract, while Fluor seeks immunity.

A ruling for the contractor could make it harder for individuals to sue private companies for battlefield mistakes. This might lower legal risks for companies working in war zones.

The Court is examining the Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. standard. This rule usually protects government contractors from being held liable for certain types of state-law claims.

The justices will meet in private to vote on the outcome. One justice will then be assigned to write the official opinion explaining the Court's final decision.

This case follows a trend of defining the boundaries of federal immunity (protection from lawsuits). It asks how much control the military must have over a contractor to grant protection.