The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case that could reshape when contractors can be held responsible for deadly mistakes on the battlefield.

The suit, Hencely v. Fluor, centers on a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan that killed five people and wounded 17.

Army Specialist Winston Hencely and other plaintiffs say Fluor Corp. failed to supervise an employee who built and detonated the device that killed three soldiers and two Fluor employees.

An Army inquiry concluded Fluor provided the perpetrator, Ahmad Nayeb, the tools and workspace used to assemble the bomb and failed to monitor him during escort duties.

Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement

Hencely’s lawyer argued that when a contractor departs from its contractual duties it loses any special immunity and becomes liable under state law.

The attorney told justices the law makes it “very clear” that protections are provided only to companies that follow their contract specifications.

He added that “Our Constitution presumes that state tort claims are available and leaves it to Congress to alter that default rule. Congress has done so in some circumstances when it comes to federal contractors, but it has not barred claims by American soldiers injured by contractor negligence,” Chang said.

Those pushing for accountability argue the case is about protecting troops and enforcing clear contractual standards.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

At the same time Fluor’s lawyers warned that allowing state law suits in combat zones could interfere with military operations and create confusion over who is responsible for safety.

Fluor contends the Constitution preempts state tort claims because only the federal government has authority in matters of war.

The company proposed that courts must respect federal primacy in combat theatres and avoid imposing differing state rules on contractors that support American forces.

Several justices signaled deep skepticism about expanding suits against firms working with the military, noting the military itself has legal immunity and carries primary responsibility for base security.

“It was the military [that] was supposed to prevent [Nayeb] from bringing this stuff onto the base. And then the military runs a 5K, right? And anyone who’s run a 5K, there are lots of people stacked together at the starting line,” Kavanaugh said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed trouble fitting a contractor carve out into existing federal law and referenced the Federal Tort Claims Act in her questioning.

“I’m just trying to understand how we fit the concept into the understanding that in the [Federal Tort Claims Act], Congress decided that even with respect to combatant activities for which the government itself could not be held liable, there would still be general contractor liability,” Jackson said.

Fluor warned that permitting state lawsuits could change how contractors respond after attacks, disrupting on the ground cooperation the military needs to prevent further harm.

“If the decisions of a contractor are going to be subject to state tort suits … the contractor is going to have to act very differently when an accident happens. The immediate thing the military needs when there’s an accident like this is for soldiers and contractors to work together to make sure there’s not a similar attack later that day, the next day, and so you need cooperation,” Mosier said.

He added that “If the contractor knows we could be blamed for this, they’re going to want to do their own investigation. They’re going to want to collect their own evidence.”

Retired senior officers have warned the court that exposing contractors to a patchwork of state law could lead to “legal uncertainty and finger-pointing” in active combat zones, and that this could harm mission effectiveness.

Chang countered that enforcing accountability will make contractors take their contractual duties more seriously in dangerous environments.

He argued that the military would benefit from a ruling in favor of his client because it would “incentivize” the contractor to adhere to its specifications in a war zone.

Chang pressed that immunity defenses should not apply here because “Fluor violated what the military wanted it to do.”

He urged the justices, if they are creating a federal common law framework, to favor rules that “further the government’s interest by avoiding contractor negligence,” Chang said.

The facts of the 2016 attack are stark. Nayeb reportedly built the device in his on-base workspace using materials from his job in vehicle maintenance and oil disposal.

He failed to board an escort bus and then walked toward a crowded race staging area where soldiers and civilians confronted him before he detonated the bomb.

Among those killed were three soldiers and two Fluor employees.

Families and injured service members have sued, but their case is paused while the Supreme Court decides whether state law claims can proceed.

Conservatives who support strong national defense and strict accountability for those who benefit from government contracts view this as a critical test.

A decision that protects troops by holding contractors accountable would be applauded by supporters of President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth who back firm standards and responsibility in wartime contracting.

The court is expected to rule in the coming months, and its decision will define the balance between military necessity and legal responsibility for years to come.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.