The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Wednesday that a lawsuit by a U.S. Army veteran hurt in a Taliban suicide bombing can go ahead. This overturned a lower court’s decision to throw it out.
When a Taliban operative working for a military contractor blew up a suicide vest at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan in 2016, Winston Tyler Hencely, a former U.S. Army specialist, suffered a broken skull and brain injuries.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which turned down a broad “battlefield preemption” theory that would have stopped state-law claims related to combat activities. Thomas, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said that military contractors are not automatically protected from liability when they do things that the military did not approve of, even in war zones.
“We vacate the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” Wednesday’s decision says.
“In 2016, a Taliban operative working for respondent Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, carried out a suicide-bomb attack at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. After then-Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely confronted him, the bomber detonated his suicide vest,” the opinion explains. “As a result of the injuries he received, Hencely is now permanently disabled.”
“In an effort to recover damages for his injuries, Hencely sued Fluor, bringing state-law tort claims for negligently retaining and supervising the attacker. According to Hencely and the United States military, Fluor’s conduct was not authorized by the military and even violated instructions the military had given it as a condition of operating on the base,” the opinion notes.
Justice Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The Supreme Court made headlines late last week in a separate case.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chevron on Friday in a case about whether a Louisiana environmental lawsuit can go to federal court.
In Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, the justices said that the case is covered by the federal officer removal statute, which lets Chevron move the lawsuit from state court to federal court. The justices threw out a lower court’s decision that kept the case in state court and sent it back for more work.
All of the justices agreed that the oil companies should be able to fight the lawsuits in federal court instead of state court.
“Congress has long authorized federal officers and their agents to remove suits brought against them in state court to federal court,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.
The case of Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, La. was about a very specific question: could the oil companies move cases about environmental damage from state court to federal court? But people who are suing over climate change damages, like climate activists and state officials, have been paying close attention to the case because state courts are thought to be more open to these types of lawsuits.
The U.S. Supreme Court also deliverd a key ruling in another case, where the justices ruled that when authorities seize cars and other property used in drug crimes, even when the property belongs to so-called innocent owners, they are not required to hold a prompt hearing.
The justices voted 6-3 to reject the claims of two Alabama women who had to wait more than a year for the return of their cars. The case stemmed from instances in which police pulled over vehicles and seized them after discovering drugs.
Authorities can seize property through civil forfeiture without needing to prove its illegal use. Opponents call the practice “legalized theft.”
For the conservative majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that a civil forfeiture hearing to ascertain if an owner will lose the property permanently must take place on time. However, he added, the Constitution does not also call for a different hearing to determine whether police may temporarily retain cars or other property.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent for the liberal members of the court that since police departments frequently have a financial incentive to retain the property, civil forfeiture is “vulnerable to abuse.”