Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶4
Fluor argues that federal law preempts Hencely's suit. But, no statute or constitutional provision expressly does so. And, our precedent suggests that state law is generally not preempted when the “contractor could comply with both its contractual obligations” to the military and state law—unlike when the state-imposed duty “is precisely contrary to the duty imposed by the Government contract.” Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U. S. 500, 509 (1988). However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that federal law preempts Hencely's suit based on a different rule: During wartime, all state-law claims against military contractors under military command arising out of combatant activities are preempted regardless of whether any confict exists between the military's instructions and state law. 120 F. 4th 412, 426 (2024). We disagree. The preemption rule on…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.