The major Afghanistan military lawsuits fall into several tracks: contractor accountability cases arising from attacks and abuses in the war zone, Anti-Terrorism Act suits accusing Western companies of paying off the Taliban, veterans’ claims tied to burn pit exposures and the PACT Act, class actions to upgrade less-than-honorable discharges for veterans with PTSD, and litigation forcing the government to process Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan allies. The most consequential recent decision is the Supreme Court’s April 2026 ruling in Hencely v. Fluor Corp., which stripped military contractors of the broad “battlefield preemption” shield they had used to block negligence suits.
Hencely v. Fluor: Contractor Liability After Bagram
On November 12, 2016, an Afghan national named Ahmad Nayeb detonated a suicide vest during a Veterans Day 5K race at Bagram Airfield, killing five people and wounding seventeen. Three soldiers died: Private First Class Tyler Iubelt, Staff Sergeant John Perry, and Sergeant First Class Allan Brown. Two civilian contractors, Peter Provost and Jarrold Reeves, were also killed. Army Specialist Winston Hencely, then twenty, was among the critically wounded.1Military Times. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Soldier Who Sued Contractor Over 2016 Bagram Bombing
Nayeb worked in a vehicle maintenance yard on the base for a subcontractor of Fluor Corporation, which held a base-support contract with the U.S. military. An Army investigation released in late 2017 concluded that Nayeb was a former Taliban fighter, that Fluor had been aware of his prior Taliban affiliations, and that he had assembled his explosive vest inside his workspace over roughly four months using tools he repeatedly checked out for tasks unrelated to his job.2Army Times. He Confronted a Suicide Bomber Just Before an Attack; Now He’s Suing the Insurgent’s Boss The Army found Fluor “primarily responsible” for the attack because of “complacency and its lack of reasonable supervision.” Nayeb held a red badge that required a Fluor escort at all times outside his work area; when he failed to board the shuttle taking Afghan workers off-base that morning, Fluor did not report him missing.3U.S. Supreme Court. Hencely v. Fluor Corp., Petition and Appendix
Hencely sued Fluor in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging negligent supervision, negligent entrustment of tools, and negligent retention. The district court granted summary judgment for Fluor, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed under a “battlefield preemption” doctrine holding that state-law claims against military contractors performing combatant activities are automatically blocked during wartime, whether or not the contractor followed military instructions.4U.S. Supreme Court. Hencely v. Fluor Corp., Opinion
On April 22, 2026, the Supreme Court vacated that judgment 6–3. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a majority that included Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson, held that the Fourth Circuit’s blanket preemption rule “lacks any foundation in the Constitution, federal statutes or our precedents.”5New York Times. Supreme Court Revives Lawsuit Over Afghanistan Bombing The Court addressed three doctrines the lower courts had leaned on. The Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception (28 U.S.C. §2680(j)) preserves the government’s immunity but does not extend to private contractors. The Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. defense from 1988 shields contractors only when they follow government-directed specifications, not when they violate federal instructions. And the Yearsley doctrine, which lets contractors share the government’s immunity when acting precisely as directed, did not apply because Fluor allegedly acted outside its military-granted authority.4U.S. Supreme Court. Hencely v. Fluor Corp., Opinion
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, arguing that the lawsuit intruded “on the federal government’s exclusive power to make war and conduct combat operations.”6PBS NewsHour. Supreme Court Revives Wounded Veteran’s Lawsuit Against a Contractor Over Suicide Bombing The case returns to the lower courts for trial. The practical effect is significant: contractors remain protected when they follow the government’s specific instructions, but they can no longer claim automatic immunity for conduct the military itself found deficient.
Al Shimari v. CACI: The Abu Ghraib Verdict
A parallel contractor accountability case ran from the Iraq war rather than Afghanistan but shaped the same body of law. In Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., three Iraqi citizens detained at Abu Ghraib prison between 2003 and 2004 sued CACI, the private contractor that provided interrogation services. After sixteen years of litigation and an earlier mistrial, a federal jury in November 2024 found CACI liable for conspiracy to commit torture and conspiracy to commit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment under the Alien Tort Statute. The jury rejected CACI’s defense that its employees were “borrowed servants” of the military and awarded each plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.7Just Security. Abu Ghraib Alien Tort Statute On March 12, 2026, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the presumption against extraterritoriality did not bar the claims because Abu Ghraib was under “complete jurisdiction and control” of the United States during the relevant period.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
Anti-Terrorism Act Suits Alleging Payments to the Taliban
In December 2019, nearly 400 wounded service members and family members of those killed filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made systematic protection payments to the Taliban between 2006 and 2014 to keep their operations from being attacked, effectively funding the insurgency.9CNN. Gold Star Families Sue Defense Contractors Alleging They Funded the Taliban The named defendants included MTN Group, DAI Global, the Louis Berger Group, Black & Veatch Special Projects, G4S Holdings International, Centerra Group, and Janus Global Operations.10Courthouse News. U.S. Contractors Accused of Funding Taliban Attacks Against American Troops The complaint further alleged that MTN, a South African telecom, deactivated cellular towers at night at the Taliban’s request to keep U.S. forces from tracking insurgent movements. Defendants generally declined to comment or denied wrongdoing; Black & Veatch stated it “followed the directives of the US government agencies that we served.”11NPR. Gold Star Families Sue Defense Contractors Alleging They Funded the Taliban
A separate Anti-Terrorism Act case targeted banks rather than on-the-ground contractors. In Wildman v. Deutsche Bank, American service members and civilians injured in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2016 alleged that Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, and Danske Bank aided terrorist organizations by financing fertilizer companies whose products were used in IEDs, laundering money for Taliban-linked entities, and enabling tax fraud that financed terrorism. The Eastern District of New York dismissed the case in December 2022, and the Second Circuit affirmed in July 2025, holding that under the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged the banks aided and abetted the attacks.12U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Wildman v. Deutsche Bank, Second Circuit Opinion
Burn Pit Claims, the PACT Act, and the Smoke Settlement
Thousands of veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq suffer respiratory illnesses, cancers, and other conditions linked to the open-air burn pits used to dispose of waste on military bases. Traditional damages suits against the government and contractors mostly failed, with courts treating burn pit operations as protected military decisions. One exception: KBR settled with more than 2,000 veterans in 2019 for $85 million.13Ethel Nosroff Law. Military Burn Pit Lawsuit
Relief came instead through legislation. The PACT Act (Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act) established more than twenty new presumptive conditions linked to burn pits and other toxic exposures. Veterans who served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other specified locations on or after September 11, 2001, receive a presumption of toxic exposure without having to prove a direct causal link. In the law’s first year, the VA completed over 458,000 related claims and delivered more than $1.85 billion in benefits.14U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The PACT Act and Your VA Benefits
On March 6, 2026, the Army settled the class action Smoke et al. v. Driscoll, agreeing to classify open-air burn pits in combat zones as “instrumentalities of war.” The designation matters because it makes disability retirement pay for burn-pit-related conditions tax-free. Previously the Army had denied combat-related designations for PACT Act conditions, leaving that pay subject to federal income tax. Under the settlement, the Army agreed to review records of veterans medically retired on or after August 10, 2022, for PACT Act conditions and issue revised determinations within six months. The Department of Defense estimates that 3.5 million service members were exposed to burn pits.15NVLSP. NVLSP and Sidley Settle Class Action Lawsuit With U.S. Army Designating Burn Pits as Instrumentalities of War
Discharge Upgrades for Veterans With PTSD
Two parallel class actions addressed a systemic problem: tens of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, or other mental health conditions had received less-than-honorable discharges that cut them off from VA benefits. The military discharge review boards were accused of ignoring a 2014 directive (the “Hagel Memo”) requiring “liberal consideration” of mental health factors when reviewing upgrade applications.
In Kennedy v. McCarthy, filed in the District of Connecticut, a federal judge certified a nationwide class of over 50,000 Army veterans in December 2018.16Yale Law School. Federal Court Approves Nationwide Class Action for Army Veterans With PTSD The court approved a settlement on April 26, 2021. Under it, the Army Discharge Review Board automatically reconsiders cases involving PTSD, TBI, military sexual trauma, or other behavioral health conditions that were denied between April 2011 and April 2021. Veterans with older cases received notice and an opportunity to reapply. The settlement also established telephonic hearings and requires annual specialized training for board members.17Kennedy Settlement. Kennedy v. McCarthy Class Action Settlement
The Navy and Marine Corps counterpart, Manker v. Del Toro (originally filed as Manker v. Spencer), followed the same path. Filed in March 2018 and certified the same year, it produced a settlement that received final court approval on February 15, 2022. The Naval Discharge Review Board automatically reconsiders cases decided between March 2012 and February 2022 where veterans did not receive full upgrades, and veterans with older cases were notified of their right to reapply. The settlement also required video-teleconference hearings and an online application tracking portal.18Manker Settlement. Manker v. Del Toro Class Action Settlement
Afghan Allies’ Special Immigrant Visa Litigation
Afghan and Iraqi nationals who supported U.S. military missions have faced years-long delays receiving the Special Immigrant Visas Congress promised them. In Afghan & Iraqi Allies v. Rubio, applicants who had waited far past the nine-month statutory processing timeline sued to force the government to act. Some had been waiting more than a decade.19International Refugee Assistance Project. Federal Court Rules Government Must Process Visa Applications of Afghan Allies
On February 9, 2026, Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the Trump administration to immediately resume processing visa applications for class members despite a December 2025 travel ban prohibiting Afghan nationals from entering the United States. She found that administration officials had “no authority — statutory or otherwise — allowing them to unilaterally suspend processes that Congress has required them to expedite.” The court also found the government was not meeting previously ordered benchmarks for processing Chief of Mission applications, scheduling visa interviews, and completing administrative processing. The government has filed a notice of appeal.20Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Rubio. Opinion and Order re Motion to Enforce and Motion for Accounting