Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶2
Held: The Fourth Circuit erred in finding Hencely's state-law tort claims preempted where the Federal Government neither ordered nor authorized Fluor's challenged conduct. Pp. 37–48. (a) Neither the Constitution nor any federal statute expressly preempts Hencely's suit. The Supremacy Clause requires state law to yield only when it conficts with rights or restrictions that stem from the Constitution or a valid federal statute or treaty. Kansas v. Garcia, 589 U. S. 191, 202. Here, no constitutional provision or federal statute expressly preempts Hencely's suit. And the Court has already held that the FTCA's combatant-activities exception does not itself apply to suits against federal contractors. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U. S. 807, 813–814. Pp. 37–48. (b) Lacking any constitutional or statutory text supporting preemption, the Fourth Circuit relied on Boyle v. United Technologies…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.