U.S. troops may sue military contractors for their injuries, Supreme Court rules
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that U.S. soldiers can sue military contractors for injuries sustained by a soldier who was seriously injured when a Taliban agent working at Bagram Airfield detonated a suicide bomb.
Five soldiers were killed and 17 wounded, including 20-year-old Winston Henceley, who suffered a fractured skull and brain damage and was left permanently disabled.
One The court ruled 6-3 Neither federal law nor the Constitution protects military contractors whose errors or negligence result in injuries to soldiers in a war zone.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the court for an unusual majority that included Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In the past, Thomas has challenged court precedents that prevent soldiers from suing the U.S. government for injuries, including medical practices.
And he said this rule should not be expanded to protect military contractors.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
“Because the Constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority over foreign relations and the conduct of wars, federal law supersedes all state laws that substantially interfere with the Government’s exercise of those powers,” Alito wrote. wrote Alito.
That’s why he tried to stop and question Afghan worker Ahmad Nayeb as he walked toward soldiers gathered for the Veterans Day 5K race in 2016.
The military concluded that Hence’s intervention “likely prevented a much greater tragedy” and its investigation concluded that Fluor Corporation, which had the contract to run operations at the base, was primarily responsible for the attack.
The report said Fluor was negligent in hiring an Afghan who was a Taliban operative and failed to closely supervise him.
However, because of this, he sued Fluor for his injuries; A federal judge in South Carolina and the 4th Circuit threw out his case.
“During war, where a private service contractor is integrated into combat activities over which the military retains command authority, tort claims arising from the contractor’s participation in such activities will be precluded,” the 4th Circuit said.
The court agreed to hear his appeal and reversed the 4th Circuit, allowing the case to proceed.
