2026年4月22日 美国东部时间上午11:27 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨（John Fritze）
33分钟前发布
2026年4月22日美国东部时间上午11:27正式发布
最高法院 国家安全 恐怖主义 中东
查看所有主题
2026年3月23日于华盛顿特区的美国最高法院。
埃文·武奇/路透社摄
美国最高法院周三支持一名在巴格拉姆空军基地遭自杀式炸弹袭击严重受伤的陆军 Specialist（专业军士），该士兵正试图起诉一名军事承包商，理由是该承包商未能对实施袭击的阿富汗雇员进行监管。
这份以6票支持、3票反对的判决引发了保守派大法官之间的分歧，由克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官撰写的判决意见书将准许温斯顿·T·亨瑟利（Winston T. Hencely）继续提起损害赔偿诉讼。2016年袭击事件发生时，亨瑟利年仅20岁，当时他与袭击者正面遭遇。
袭击造成五名士兵和平民死亡，十余人受伤，亨瑟利因此完全丧失了左臂、左手和左侧面部的活动能力。他的律师表示，他长期遭受慢性疼痛、认知障碍、记忆丧失和焦虑症的折磨。
袭击者后被确认为艾哈迈德·内耶布（Ahmad Nayeb），一名阿富汗国民，当时在一家军事承包商的车辆维修场工作。亨瑟利起诉该承包商福陆公司（Fluor Corporation）及其分包商，称其未对阿富汗雇员进行适当审查和监管。
“政府要求福陆公司雇佣阿富汗雇员，并为巴格拉姆空军基地提供后勤保障，”托马斯在法院判决书中写道，“但亨瑟利辩称，政府并未要求福陆公司任由内耶布脱离监管，允许他在轮班后独自闲逛一小时，或是允许他获取可用于制作炸弹的未经授权工具。”
托马斯还写道，陆军方面“认定亨瑟利的干预‘大概率避免了一场规模更大的悲剧’”。
相关报道 2月20日透过相机取景器拍摄的美国最高法院。亚伦·施瓦茨/盖蒂图片社/资料图
九名大法官越来越多地在法院之外打造个人品牌 阅读时长7分钟
一家联邦地区法院曾以1988年最高法院的一项先例为由驳回亨瑟利的诉讼，该先例限制民众针对军事承包商提起伤害诉讼。在1988年的案件中，一名在训练演习中身亡的海军陆战队飞行员家属起诉直升机制造商，指控其紧急逃生舱门设计存在缺陷。当时意见分歧严重的最高法院驳回了此类诉讼，称美国军方已批准该直升机的设计方案。
最高法院保守派成员塞缪尔·阿利托大法官周三撰写了反对意见，称战区通常属于联邦政府的管辖范围，而非各州。
“各州能否监管活跃战区军事基地的安保安排？州法官和陪审团能否对那些与军事决策密不可分的问题作出裁决——这些决策需要权衡战争相关风险与长期战略目标？在我看来，这些问题的答案必须是‘不能’，”阿利托写道，“正因如此，这起州法侵权诉讼被宪法中关于战争权力专属联邦政府的条款所优先适用。”
阿利托的反对意见得到了首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺的支持。
福陆公司辩称，1988年的判例应终结亨瑟利的诉讼。该公司称，陆军方面已批准内耶布的雇佣申请，且未向公司透露有关内耶布的安全隐患。特朗普政府也站在分包商一方，辩称军事承包商不应受到州侵权诉讼的约束。
但亨瑟利反驳称，1988年的“博伊尔诉联合技术公司案（Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation）”判决有所不同，因为该案中的承包商只是在执行命令。
“博伊尔案为那些遵照政府指令行事的承包商提供了有限的抗辩理由，”亨瑟利的律师在11月初的最高法院口头辩论中告诉大法官，“博伊尔案不适用于本案，因为陆军本身已认定福陆公司存在违规行为。”
亨瑟利在南卡罗来纳州的一家联邦法院提起诉讼，要求损害赔偿，依据州法律提出监管过失等主张。
联邦地区法院支持承包商后，美国第四巡回上诉法院维持了这一判决。亨瑟利随后向最高法院提起上诉。
最高法院 国家安全 恐怖主义 中东
查看所有主题
Supreme Court allows soldier injured in Bagram suicide bombing to sue contractor
2026-04-22 11:27 AM ET / CNN
By John Fritze
33 min ago
PUBLISHED Apr 22, 2026, 11:27 AM ET
Supreme Court National security Terrorism The Middle East
See all topics
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2026.
Evan Vucci/Reuters
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with an Army specialist who was severely injured by a suicide bomber on Bagram Air Base and is attempting to sue a military contractor for failing to supervise the Afghan employee who carried out the attack.
The 6-3 decision, which split the court’s conservatives and was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, will allow Winston T. Hencely, who was 20 years old when he confronted the attacker in a 2016 incident, to continue to pursue his lawsuit for damages.
Hencely lost full use of his left arm, left hand and left side of his face after the attack, which killed five soldiers and civilians and wounded more than a dozen others. His lawyers said he endures chronic pain, cognitive disorders, memory loss and anxiety.
The bomber was later identified as Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan national who was working at a vehicle maintenance yard for a military contractor. Hencely sued the contractor, Fluor Corporation, and a subcontractor for failing to properly vet and supervise Afghan employees.
“The government required Fluor to hire Afghan employees and to provide logistics for Bagram Airfield,” Thomas wrote for the court. “But, it did not, Hencely contends, require Fluor to leave Nayeb unsupervised, allow him to walk alone for an hour after his shift, or permit him to obtain unauthorized tools with which he could build a bomb.”
The Army, Thomas wrote, “concluded that Hencely’s intervention ‘likely prevented a far greater tragedy.’”
Related article The US Supreme Court is seen through a camera viewfinder on February 20. Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images/File The nine justices are increasingly building their own personal brands outside the court 7 min read
A federal district court had ruled against Hencely based on a 1988 Supreme Court precedent that limits the ability of people to file injury lawsuits against military contractors. In that case, the family of a Marine pilot who died during a training exercise sued the helicopter manufacturer for the design of its emergency escape hatch. A sharply divided Supreme Court barred such lawsuits, noting that the US military had approved the helicopter’s design.
Justice Samuel Alito, another member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a dissent Wednesday saying that war zones are typically considered the purview of the federal government, not individual states.
“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,’” Alito wrote. “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 was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Fluor Corporation argued that the 1988 case should end Hencely’s litigation. It said the Army had authorized Nayeb’s employment and withheld security concerns about him from the company. The Trump administration also sided with the subcontractor, arguing that military contractors should not be subject to state tort suits.
But Hencely countered that the 1988 decision, Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, was different because the contractor in that case was simply following orders.
“Boyle recognized a limited defense for contractors who do what the government says,” Hencely’s attorney told the Supreme Court during oral arguments in early November. “Boyle doesn’t apply here because the Army itself found that Fluor violated.”
Hencely sued in a federal court in South Carolina for damages, alleging negligent supervision and other claims under state law.
After the federal district court sided with the contractor, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. Hencely then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court National security Terrorism The Middle East
See all topics
发表回复