Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶36

That test sweeps too broadly. The FTCA's combatantactivities exception forecloses suits “arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(j) (emphasis added). Like the discretionary-function exception on which Boyle relied, the combatant-activities exception protects the Government's decisionmaking. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit seems to have recognized that the relevant federal interest is “foreclosing state regulation of the military's battlefeld conduct and decisions.” In re KBR, 744 F. 3d, at 350 (emphasis added). But, even assuming such an interest can preempt state law, “[n]o significant confict exists between that interest and state law unless the challenged action can reasonably be considered the military's own conduct or decision and the operation of state law would confict with that decision.” Badilla v. Midwest…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.