No Orders, No Preemption: The Supreme Court Rejects “Battlefield Preemption” for Military Contractors in Hencely

When may a state-law suit against a military contractor premised on the contractor’s activities in a war zone proceed? The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, 608 U.S. ---- , 146 S. Ct. 1086 (2026). Over a dissent, the Court rejected the “battlefield preemption” doctrine—a sweeping rule that had effectively insulated contractors from state-law tort claims arising from conduct in war zones—and held that federal law does not preempt such tort claims where the conduct complained of was neither required nor authorized by the federal government. Hencely thus reopens the courthouse doors to certain state-law claims against military contractors by jettisoning a categorical rule for a conduct-specific inquiry—one that turns on whether the contractor was truly following orders when engaging in the conduct at issue.

Read the full blog post.