The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could redefine accountability for military contractors after a devastating 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan left five Americans dead and more than a dozen wounded. At the center of the case stands former Army Specialist Winston Hencely, who suffered life-altering injuries when he confronted a bomber moments before detonation.
A Veterans Day Attack
What began as a Veterans Day celebration turned tragic when Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan national employed by defense contractor Fluor Corporation, detonated a suicide vest during a 5K run at the base. Court documents reveal that Hencely confronted Nayeb as he approached troops, grabbing the man’s shoulder and feeling the explosive vest hidden beneath his clothing just before it exploded.
The blast killed five Americans and injured seventeen others. Hencely survived but suffered traumatic brain injury and paralysis affecting his left side — injuries that have permanently altered his life.
“The U.S. Supreme Court will take up the case of an Army soldier who sued a defense contractor for negligence in a bombing that killed five during a Veterans Day 5K at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, in 2016,” Military.com reported earlier this month.
Negligence Claims
At issue is whether Fluor Corporation can be held liable for what an Army investigation described as egregious security lapses. According to court filings, Nayeb, who had Taliban connections, constructed his bomb over approximately four months while working on the base, using materials and tools from his vehicle maintenance job under what plaintiffs describe as woefully inadequate supervision.
“The Army’s Investigation Report is a scathing indictment of Fluor… Fluor failed to follow the terms of its contract to supervise its employees at Bagram Air Field and put our service men and women at risk,” Army Times noted in its coverage of the lawsuit.
Despite these findings, Hencely’s path to justice has been blocked by complex legal barriers. The Fourth Circuit Court dismissed his state-law tort claims against Fluor, ruling that federal law preempted them and that Hencely wasn’t entitled to enforce the government’s contract with the company as a third-party beneficiary, according to court documents.
Legal Battle Draws Broader Support
How can a private contractor potentially escape liability for apparent negligence that led to American deaths? That’s the question at the heart of this case, which has now attracted support from multiple state attorneys general.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has joined a multistate coalition backing Hencely, arguing that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling improperly shields Fluor from accountability. “Our military servicemembers and their families deserve better than a system that gives corporate contractors a free pass,” Paxton stated in a press release. “No contractor should be allowed to hide behind legal loopholes after their egregious negligence caused the death of five Americans and endangered many others.”
The case hinges on interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which the Fourth Circuit applied to dismiss Hencely’s claims. Critics argue that this misapplies the law, as the FTCA doesn’t extend immunity to private contractors.
A Hero’s Fight Continues
Hencely’s actions on that November day in 2016 likely saved countless lives. When Nayeb approached the Veterans Day event, Hencely’s quick thinking led him to confront the suspicious individual — a decision that exposed him to the full force of the blast but potentially spared many others.
Now, nearly a decade later, his fight continues in the nation’s highest court, where the justices will determine whether companies like Fluor can be held accountable when their negligence allegedly contributes to attacks on American personnel.
For veterans and active service members watching this case, the outcome represents far more than a legal technicality. It’s about whether those who serve their country can expect proper protection from the contractors tasked with supporting them — and what recourse they have when those safeguards fail.
