The Supreme Court’s new terrorism decision will have a wide-ranging fallout

Key Points:

• The Supreme Court ruled in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation that a state lawsuit against a military contractor for failing to supervise an Afghan employee who committed a suicide bombing is not preempted by federal law, allowing the case to proceed.
• The Court's decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, reflects a narrower view of federal preemption, requiring a direct conflict between federal directives and state law for preemption to apply.
• The ruling highlights a division among the justices, with three Republican justices dissenting and expressing concern that allowing the lawsuit could undermine federal military policies like the "Afghan First" program.
• This case signals a shift in the Court’s approach to preemption, suggesting increased skepticism toward broad federal preemption claims, which may impact future cases involving consumer rights and immigration laws.
• Justice Thomas’s opinion aligns with his previous skepticism of expansive preemption doctrines, and the support from Gorsuch and Barrett indicates a potential realignment on the Court regarding the balance between federal authority and state law.