Alito Breaks With Thomas in Taliban Suicide Bomber Supreme Court Case

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito dissented from a court majority opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, in a case about whether federal or state law takes precedence in a lawsuit stemming from a Taliban suicide bombing.

The lawsuit was filed by former Army specialist Winston T. Hencely, who suffered a fractured skull and brain injuries in a suicide-bomb attack at a U.S. base in Afghanistan in 2016. The Army's investigation found military contractor Fluor Corporation primarily responsible because it negligently supervised Ahmad Nayeb, a Taliban operative who carried out the attack.

Nayeb had been hired by Fluor as part of the "Afghan First" initiative, a military program requiring contractors to hire Afghans to help stimulate the local economy and stabilize the nation’s government.

Hencely sought damages under South Carolina law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment of tools and negligent retention of Nayeb. A district court entered a summary judgment for Fluor, and an appeals court affirmed. The courts held that, during wartime, state-law claims against military contractors under military command, arising out of combatant activities, are preempted by federal law.

The Supreme Court vacated the appeals court’s judgment.

“No provision of the Constitution and no federal statute justifies that preemption of the State's ordinary authority over

tort suits. Nor does any precedent of this Court command such a result,” Thomas wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“May a State regulate security arrangements on a military base in an active warzone? May state judges and juries pass judgment on questions that are inextricably tied to military decisions that balance war-related risks against long-term strategic objectives? In my judgment, the answer to these questions must be ‘no,’ and for that reason, this state-law tort case is preempted by the Constitution's grant of war powers exclusively to the Federal Government,” Alito wrote.

This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published April 22, 2026 at 10:48 AM.