Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?

Former U.S. Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely was critically and permanently injured by a suicide bomber inside Bagram Air field in Afghanistan. The bomber , Ahmad Nayeb, worked on base for a government contractor. An Army investigation found that the attack’s primary contributing factor was the contractor’s actions in breach of its Army contract and in violation of the military ’s instructions to supervise Nayeb . Hencely sued the government contractor for negligence under South Carolina law. He did not sue the military under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Even so, t he Fourth Circuit held that Hencely’s state claims are preempted by unspoken “federal interests” emanating from an FTCA exception . Invoking Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the court of appeals held that the FTCA ’s exception immunizing the government for “[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces … during time of war ,” 28 U.S.C. §2680(j) , barred Hencely’s South Carolina claim s against the contractor. The decision below reaffirmed a 3-1-1 split among the Second, Third, Fourth , Ninth and D.C. Circuits over Boyle ’s reach when contractors defend against state tort claims by invoking §2680(j) . The question presented is: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanat ing from the FTCA’s combatant -activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders ?