In a significant legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that could redefine the accountability of military contractors in combat operations. The case centers on Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely, who sustained severe injuries while trying to intercept a suicide bomber at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan in 2016. His heroic actions are credited with potentially saving many lives, but he was left severely injured after the bomber detonated an explosive device, claiming six lives.
Hencely aimed to hold Fluor Corp., the contractor responsible for employing the bomber, accountable for negligence. However, due to federal law, particularly the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), he cannot sue the military for his injuries. Courts have previously dismissed his case against Fluor, citing that federal law prevails in this context.
During a recent session, justices raised important questions concerning Hencely’s appeal, reflecting on the implications for soldiers injured in similar situations. The FTCA generally shields the government from lawsuits involving combat activities during wartime. In a previous ruling, the Supreme Court had determined that federal interests would block such lawsuits against military contractors.
Fluor’s attorney, Mark Mosier, argued that allowing Hencely’s lawsuit could jeopardize military readiness and the vital relationship between the military and its contractors. “Petitioner’s claims also weaken the military’s control over combat operations,” Mosier stated, emphasizing that contractors must act with a degree of risk in wartime scenarios.
On the other hand, Hencely’s attorney, Frank Chang, contended that the FTCA does not explicitly cover contractors, making his case valid. He pointed out that the Army’s findings regarding Fluor’s negligence illustrate a failure in adhering to contractual obligations, which contributed to the bombing.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh indicated the complexity of the issue, noting that allowing such claims could enable states to interfere with war powers, which are constitutionally reserved for the federal government. Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed interest in exploring avenues for allowing contractors to face civil liability for any misconduct.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects on the legal recourse available to military personnel injured in combat zones and set a precedent for how military contractors are held accountable. This could be a vital step in understanding the delicate balance between war efforts and contractor responsibilities, ultimately aiming to enhance safety and accountability in military operations.