In a decision many see as a hinge point for accountability, the Supreme Court ruled that a South Carolina suit against Fluor Corporation can proceed, creating a narrow lane for service members to hold wartime contractors to account.

The ruling comes as a clear signal that private firms operating alongside the military can be drawn into state-level liability when negligence is shown.

The case centers on the 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and the injuries suffered by Army specialist Winston Hencely.

The court’s 6-to-3 decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, indicates that federal immunity does not automatically shield contractors from state tort claims when their conduct falls short of contracted duties.

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

Hencely’s experience is a stark reminder of the risks carried by those stationed overseas and the responsibilities borne by the firms that hire and supervise local workers.

As Franklin Rosenblatt, a retired Army judge advocate who teaches constitutional law at Mississippi College School of Law, noted, “opinion just says, ‘Look, neither the Constitution nor any federal law requires this state case to be dismissed,’” a point echoed across legal circles.

This framing matters because it clarifies that state courts can entertain claims against contractors when warranted by state law and the facts at hand.

Image Credit: DoW

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

If South Carolina or California proves to be states where these claims are easily made, then that could potentially lead to a lot of litigation, possibly even class actions, against some of these military contractors, Rosenblatt added.

“But whether that happens is ultimately a question of state law where the lawsuits are brought.”

The decision opens the door, but it does not promise a flood of cases, leaving the volume and scope to the rules of each jurisdiction.

Thomas’ opinion also underscores a critical point on federal protections for contractors. “Federal contractors do not automatically share the Government’s immunity merely because they perform services for it,” Thomas wrote.

“Absent a statute to the contrary, States can regulate or tax federal contractors on the same terms as any private company.” The ruling thus reaffirms a traditional state role in policing contractors, even within the theater of war.

Fluor’s lawyers had urged that state injury laws should not apply to the battlefield, arguing that “risk-taking is the rule, not the exception,” and that such standards would “stifle military decisionmaking.”

Fluor representatives did not return comment on the ruling, but the argument highlights the tension between battlefield realities and civilian redress. The court’s opinion rejects the blanket immunity claim without eliminating the possibility for contractors to be held liable under state law under appropriate circumstances.

Hencely’s case was also notable for its split vote. The decision’s tally reflected a dynamic that has long fascinated observers:Justice Thomas, typically associated with a strict view of government immunity, joined with three liberal justices and two other conservatives to form the majority.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent, reflecting ongoing debates about the balance between military necessity and civilian accountability.

Rosenblatt, reflecting a broad coalition of legal minds, commented on the evolving landscape: “Everyone likes the troops, and there’s now a sizable right-wing and a left-wing coalition on the court saying that blocking troops from recovering for injuries doesn’t make sense.”

He added, “I see this judicial coalition as emboldened to eventually reverse precedents to allow for military members, their families, and veterans to make claims against the government under the FTCA, then sue in federal court if and when the government denies those.”

The Bagram aftermath has included further actions against Fluor in South Carolina.

Another lawsuit against Fluor over the 2016 attack has been paused since 2022, as litigators awaited Hencely’s outcome, court records show. The defendants include family members of Pfc. Tyler Iubelt, 20; Staff Sgt. John Perry, 30; and Sgt. 1st Class Allan Brown, 46, all killed in the blast. Two Fluor contractors, Peter Provost, 62, and retired Army Col. Jarrold Reeves, 57, also died in the attack.

Supporters of stronger contractor oversight argue that the ruling aligns with the broader aim of ensuring accountability without compromising national security.

They contend that President Trump’s approach to defense and security emphasizes accountability and the need to police private firms that operate in zones of conflict.

They point to War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s advocacy for stricter oversight and direct responsibility for contractor performance as a practical extension of that philosophy.

The decision also signals that state-level actions can complement federal efforts to deter negligence and mismanagement by contractors who operate in sensitive environments.

Legal observers caution that the court’s decision does not erase the Feres doctrine. Yet the ruling opens a pathway for service members, families, and veterans to pursue relief under state tort laws where appropriate.

It is a development that will be watched closely as more cases move through state courts and, potentially, into broader discussions about federal versus state responsibilities for oversight of private contractors.

For the families affected by the Bagram tragedy and for the service members who carry the burden of the mission abroad, the ruling offers a measure of accountability.

It also reinforces a practical principle: when a contractor fails in its duties, the lines between private enterprise and military obligation become clearer, and avenues for redress become more visible.

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