Tag: Feres Doctrine

Supreme Court Case Could Leave Injured Service Members Without Recourse: Hencely v. Fluor

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army servicemembers sitting on courthouse steps

A Fight for Accountability in the War Zone

When Specialist Winston Tyler Hencely was catastrophically injured by a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield, he sought justice through a state-law negligence suit against the defense contractor Fluor. His claim was simple: the company failed to supervise a subcontractor whose employee allegedly built and detonated the bomb.

But federal courts dismissed his case, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception and related federal interests preempt any state-law negligence claims tied to wartime operations. Now, in Hencely v. Fluor (No. 24-924), the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether those immunity doctrines reach private contractors.

The Legal Question

At stake is whether the FTCA’s combatant-activities exception—which by its text shields the United States from liability for “claims arising out of the combatant activities of the military … during time of war” (28 U.S.C. § 2680(j))—also blocks suits against private contractors.

Hencely’s lawyers argue that the statute does not extend that far. They contend his claim concerns ordinary negligence, not battlefield decision-making. Fluor and the U.S. government counter that any tort case stemming from a war-zone base would entangle courts in military judgments, requiring preemption of state law to protect national security.

Why It Matters to Service Members

Because the Feres doctrine already bars active-duty personnel from suing the United States for service-related injuries, the only possible avenue for redress is often a suit against private contractors. If the Supreme Court upholds broad preemption, injured troops and their families could be completely without remedy—unable to sue either the government or its contractors, even for clear negligence in supervision, maintenance, or site safety.

That outcome would create what veterans’ advocates call a “remedy-free zone”: a world where those who serve in combat are left without any civil accountability for harm caused by negligent government partners.

Balancing Accountability and Military Deference

The Court must navigate the line between ensuring accountability and respecting the independence of military operations. Critics warn that expanding immunity invites careless contracting and removes incentives for safety. Supporters argue that allowing juries to review wartime conduct could second-guess the military and disrupt federal prerogatives.

However the Court rules, its decision will define the reach of contractor immunity in modern warfare and determine whether service members can still seek justice in civilian courts when contractor negligence contributes to their injuries.

Key Legal References

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or sharing this post does not create an attorney–client relationship. Service members facing similar issues should consult qualified counsel familiar with military and federal tort law.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represents service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in courts-martial, correction-board petitions, security-clearance matters, and federal employment disputes. Learn more at www.militarydefense.com.

 

Reevaluating the Feres Doctrine: Justice Thomas’s Call for Change

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Reevaluating the Feres Doctrine: Justice Thomas’s Call for Change

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court declined to hear Carter v. United States, a case challenging the longstanding Feres Doctrine, which bars active-duty service members from suing the government for injuries deemed “incident to military service.” Justice Clarence Thomas issued a compelling 14-page dissent, labeling the doctrine “indefensible” and “senseless as a matter of policy.”

The Feres Doctrine, established in 1950, has faced criticism for decades. Justice Thomas argues that it lacks a foundation in the Federal Tort Claims Act’s text and that its policy justifications are outdated. He emphasizes that the doctrine unjustly denies service members the same legal recourse available to civilians, undermining principles of fairness and accountability.

Critics of the Feres Doctrine highlight its inconsistent application and the injustices it perpetuates. For instance, service members injured due to medical malpractice in military facilities have no legal avenue for redress, a disparity that seems increasingly untenable. Justice Thomas’s dissent underscores the necessity of revisiting this doctrine to align military and civilian legal standards more closely.

While concerns about military discipline and the unique nature of military service are valid, they should not preclude service members from seeking justice for wrongs suffered outside the battlefield. Revisiting the Feres Doctrine would demonstrate a commitment to the well-being of those who serve and ensure they are not deprived of fundamental legal protections.

Resources:
law.cornell.edu

military.com

stripes.com

Disclaimer:

The information provided in this article is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. Service members facing legal or administrative challenges should consult with a qualified attorney who is experienced in military law to receive guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.