On Wednesday, April 22, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Army specialist who was severely injured in a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, allowing him to pursue a lawsuit against a military contractor for alleged negligence in supervising the attacker. The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, reversed lower court rulings that had granted the contractor immunity from liability.
The case centers on Winston T. Hencely, who was 20 years classic at the time of the attack. According to court documents and Army investigations cited in the ruling, Hencely confronted Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan national employed by a subcontractor of Fluor Corporation, as Nayeb was preparing to detonate a suicide vest during a Veterans Day weekend 5K race at Bagram Airfield. Hencely’s intervention likely prevented a far greater tragedy, the Army concluded, but he suffered severe injuries including the loss of full use of his left arm, left hand, and left side of his face, along with skull fractures, brain trauma, chronic pain, cognitive disorders, memory loss, anxiety, abnormal brainwaves, and seizures.
The bomber, Ahmad Nayeb, was working at a vehicle maintenance yard on Bagram Air Base under a contract that required Fluor Corporation to hire Afghan employees and provide logistics support for the base. Court records indicate that Nayeb was left unsupervised for nearly an hour after his shift, during which he used U.S. Government tools to construct the explosive device inside the secure base. The explosion killed five people and wounded more than a dozen others.
Justice Thomas wrote for the majority that while the government required Fluor to hire Afghan personnel and ensure compliance with base security policies—including confinement to worksites and constant supervision—it did not require the company to allow employees to walk alone for extended periods or obtain unauthorized tools. “The government required Fluor to hire Afghan employees and to provide logistics for Bagram Airfield,” Thomas wrote. “But, it did not, Hencely contends, require Fluor to leave Nayeb unsupervised, allow him to walk alone for an hour after his shift, or permit him to obtain unauthorized tools with which he could build a bomb.”
The ruling hinged on the interpretation of the combatant activities exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars lawsuits against the U.S. Government and its contractors for actions arising out of warzone operations. However, the Court determined that immunity does not apply when a contractor’s actions fall outside the scope of what it was authorized or required to do under its government contract. In this case, the Court found that Fluor’s alleged failure to supervise Nayeb and prevent his access to tools constituted conduct beyond the bounds of its contractual duties.
The decision was split along ideological lines, with Justice Thomas joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett in the majority. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The opinion noted that the decision opens the door to similar damages suits against war-zone contractors for activities that exceed the bounds of their government-authorized responsibilities.
Fluor Corporation, headquartered in Irving, Texas, has maintained that it complied with all contractual obligations and that the attack was unforeseeable. The company has not issued a public statement following the ruling as of April 22, 2026. Hencely filed his lawsuit in South Carolina, where two of Fluor’s subsidiaries are based, asserting claims under state law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment of tools, and negligent retention of an employee.
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not determine the outcome of Hencely’s case but permits it to proceed in lower courts. No date has been set for further hearings or trial proceedings as of the date of the decision. The case continues to draw attention for its implications regarding contractor accountability in overseas military operations.
For updates on this case and similar legal developments involving military contractors, readers may consult official court records via the U.S. Supreme Court’s website or follow proceedings through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the case is expected to continue.
If you found this article informative, please consider sharing it with others who may be interested in legal accountability and veterans’ rights. We welcome thoughtful comments and discussion below.