Supreme Court rules in favor of Army veteran wounded in suicide attack
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, April 20, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of a U.S. Army veteran wounded in a 2016 suicide bombing in Afghanistan, allowing him to sue a military contractor for damages after it allegedly failed to supervise the attacker who was an employee.
The 6-3 decision reverses lower court rulings which had said the contractor, Fluor Corporation, was immune from lawsuits because it was operating on behalf of the U.S. government and opens the door to other damages suits against war-zone contractors for activities outside the bounds of their responsibility.
The attacker, Ahmad Nayeb, was employed by Fluor to work in a nontactical vehicle yard on Bagram Air Base under an Army contract that required the company to ensure all personnel complied with base security policies, which included their confinement to works sites and “constant view of them.”
In November 2016, Nayeb roamed the base freely for nearly an hour and used U.S. government tools to make his bomb inside the secure base, according to an Army investigation cited in court documents.
The explosion killed five and wounded 17, including then-Army Spc. Winston Hencely, who confronted the attacker just as he detonated his suicide vest. Nayeb was killed; the explosion fractured Hencely’s skull and resulted in permanent disability.
While damages claims against the U.S. government and its military contractors arising out of combatant activities are generally prohibited by federal law, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court’s majority, concluded immunity does not apply to cases when “the contractor was not required or authorized to take the action at issue.”
“The government required Fluor to hire Afghan employees and to provide logistics for Bagram Airfield. 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,” Thomas wrote.
The decision clears the way for Hencely to pursue a damages case against the company in federal court.
In dissent, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts said while they believe Hencely deserves “a full measure of support from the American people,” a damages lawsuit is “not the way to give the petitioner what he is due.”
Alito wrote, “War is the exclusive domain of the Federal Government, but the Court [today] allows state (or foreign law) to encroach on that domain. The Constitution precludes that encroachment.”
Fluor Corp, which disputes liability for the bombing, did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment on the court’s decision.
In this Aug. 8, 2020, file photo, an offshore petroleum drilling rig is shown in the Gulf of Mexico. (UIG via Getty Images, FILE)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal committee, comprised of senior Trump administration officials, voted unanimously to grant an exemption under the Endangered Species Act for oil and gas operations in the Gulf, citing national security concerns.
Environmental groups criticized the decision, warning that it could significantly jeopardize the conservation of dozens of threatened and endangered species in the region, including whales, sea turtles, whooping cranes and manatees.
The Endangered Species Committee convened Tuesday after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a national security finding that triggered the exemption process.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Endangered Species Committee can grant rare exemptions when a federal action is of national or regional significance and the benefits of proceeding clearly outweigh the benefits of alternatives that would conserve the species. Economic, security and other public-interest factors can be considered alongside conservation mandates, though exemptions are rarely used.
“At the request of the Department of War, the Endangered Species Committee convened today to consider a national security exemption under the Endangered Species Act with respect to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a statement to ABC News.
“The Committee voted in favor of the national security exemption, acknowledging the critical risks involved in restricting oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America, and also recognizing that the action encompassed protective measures for endangered species.”
Officials emphasized that sustained oil and gas production in the region is essential to U.S. national security and economic stability, and cautioned that critical energy operations should not be jeopardized by the threat of disruptive litigation.
The committee, created in 1978, is very rarely convened due to the strict, narrow standards for its implementation. It has not met in more than 30 years, and this is the first time a national security justification has been used to convene the committee.
The Endangered Species Committee, composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was fully present and voted unanimously in favor of granting the exemption.
“This meeting made clear that energy streams in the Gulf of America must not be disrupted or held hostage by ongoing litigation,” said Secretary Burgum. “Energy production in the Gulf of America is indispensable to our nation’s strength, safeguarding our energy independence and preventing reliance on foreign adversaries. Robust development in the Gulf keeps our economy resilient, stabilizes costs for American families and secures the U.S. as a global leader for decades to come.”
On March 13, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notified Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, chair of the Endangered Species Committee, that a national security exemption under Section 7(j) of the Endangered Species Act, was necessary, prompting Secretary Burgum to publish a notice of the meeting in the Federal Register.
The meeting began with the defense secretary addressing the committee, stressing the importance of a steady, affordable domestic energy supply, which is currently under threat. He thanked the committee members for convening to discuss what he called “a matter of urgent national security.”
“This is not just about gas prices. It’s about our ability to power our military and protect our nation. That vital energy supply right now is under threat,” Hegseth said. “In January, well before Operation Epic Fury, the Department of the Interior notified the Department of War about ongoing Endangered Species Act litigation that threatened to halt oil and gas production in the Gulf of America.”
According to Hegseth, the litigation seeks to stop Gulf oil and gas activities rather than allow them to proceed alongside responsible endangered species protections.
“These legal battles waste critical government resources and make it impossible for energy companies to plan and invest in new projects. When development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country and as a department,” Hegseth added. “The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s busiest oil route and recent hostile action by the Iranian terror regime highlights yet again why robust domestic oil production is a national security imperative.”
However, environmental groups argue this is not what the authors of this landmark law intended.
The Center for Biological Diversity sued Secretary Burgum on March 18, attempting to block the committee meeting, saying the government missed legal requirements, including filing deadlines, providing ample public notice, and having an administrative law judge preside. Following the committee’s decision, the group announced it will amend its existing lawsuit to challenge the defense secretary’s national security determination and the exemption.
“Americans overwhelmingly oppose sacrificing endangered whales and other marine life so the fossil fuel industry can get richer. This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Trump and his lackeys kowtowing to Big Oil,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
Environmental groups are particularly concerned about the Rice’s whale, which, according to NOAA, is one of the rarest and most endangered whales in the world and is found only in the Gulf.
NOAA Fisheries, which manages protections for marine species under the Endangered Species Act, listed the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale as endangered in 2019 and, in 2021, updated its name to Rice’s whale to reflect the newly accepted scientific taxonomy and nomenclature of the species.
According to the Marine Mammal Commission, the most recent population estimates show there are only 51 Rice’s whales remaining.
The Rice’s whale’s small population, limited range and low genetic diversity make it highly vulnerable to threats such as vessel strikes and oil spills. NOAA says the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill exposed about 48 percent of its habitat in the eastern Gulf, likely causing a population decline of up to 22 percent and leaving lasting impacts on reproduction and growth.
The committee’s decision will not have any immediate effect, and lawsuits challenging the action could delay its implementation further. It could be several years before any future additional oil production tied to the decision is realized.
“The action could make it easier for applications to be granted for further oil and gas exploration and development in the Gulf; but it takes several years between the filing of an application and the production of the first barrel of oil,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. ”No court has ordered oil and gas production to be shut down in the Gulf, and such an order seems very unlikely.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) participates in a public forum on the violent use of force by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Expanding her probes into Trump administration policies, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is demanding answers from Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the impact of federal immigration surges on children’s health.
In a letter to Kennedy first obtained by ABC News, Warren, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, and other congressional Democrats expressed concern that the health department is failing in its responsibility to protect the wellbeing of children.
“This disregard for child welfare undermines the government’s core child-protection obligations,” the lawmakers wrote. “Yet your agency [HHS] does not appear to be taking any action to speak out against or investigate the impacts of the Trump Administration’s immigration agenda on children,” they wrote.
The letter says the federal operations from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) “risk traumatizing children and depriving them of access to education and basic services, with lasting consequences for their behavioral, physical, academic, and emotional wellbeing.”
Warren told ABC News, “Donald Trump promised two things: he would lower costs for American families and he would keep families safe.”
“Costs are up and, thanks to ICE targeting, families are more at risk than at any time in living memory,” she said.
The Massachusetts senator urged Kennedy to respond to her inquiry and remind the world of the health department’s responsibility to children.
“That means not putting [kids] through the trauma of violent separation from their parents, having flash bangs thrown at them, having them gassed, or using them as bait to try to snare their family members,” Warren told ABC News at the Capitol on Wednesday.
HHS spokeswoman Emily Hilliard asserted that “The Department remains committed to the safety and well-being of all unaccompanied minors in its care.”
“Any claims otherwise are baseless and inaccurate,” she said.
More than 50 lawmakers signed on to the letter requesting that Kennedy provide any information HHS has regarding the impact of ICE and CBP operations on children’s mental health and development by Feb. 18. Their letter comes amid Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, where Trump’s border czar Tom Homan announced Wednesday the government will reduce about a quarter of the 3,000 federal troops in the state effective immediately. Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith told ABC News the federal operation has resulted in a precipitous drop in school attendance that will have a “dramatic” and “long-lived” impact on children and families.
Warren’s letter stressed that ICE and CBP’s tactics include the alleged use of tear gas, explosives, attack dogs and window-smashing in or near schools and child care centers in places like Minnesota, Illinois and Texas. It also recounts at least four students who have experienced “raids” at schools, day care centers, and a child’s birthday party.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has stressed that the agency is not invading or raiding classrooms. However, a DHS memo outlining the department’s approach said “[ICE] Officers would need secondary supervisor approval before any action can be taken in locations such as a school. We expect these to be extremely rare.”
National Parents Union President Keri Rodrigues said she spent the last week with parents in Minnesota and told ABC News that it’s “deeply unsafe” for children to be walking through what she described as “war zones” to get to school.
“Parents want the expectation that in places like schools, their kids are going to be safe,” Rodrigues said. “You got ICE agents that are stalking kids walking to elementary school. You got guys with binoculars banging on the doors of the schoolhouse — like none of this is going to work for parents,” she added.
Neither DHS nor the White House responded to ABC News’ request for comment.
Warren, a fierce defender of public education and vocal Trump critic, has used Trump’s second term to fight back against his policies.
Last year, Warren launched her “Save Our Schools” campaign in opposition to Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and another investigation called the Social Security War Room, a coordinated effort to combat the administration’s so-called “attack on Americans’ Social Security” at the Social Security Administration.
Meanwhile, the impact of Trump’s immigration curb is having a ripple effect across the country, according to education leaders and experts who’ve spoken to ABC News, saying it’s leaving some families and communities fearful of returning to school each day — from the nation’s capital to Los Angeles, California —
To-wen Tseng, a substitute teacher in California, said her students ask her ‘What will happen if the ICE agents come to our classroom?'” “I told them that won’t happen because the school won’t let them in and I won’t let them enter the classroom [either],” Tseng told ABC News. “But the truth is, I don’t know what I can do if ICE really shows up at my classroom door,” she said.
“I keep telling my children and my students that they are safe, just because I don’t want them to worry, and I feel it should be our responsibility to protect them,” Tseng added. “We should keep them safe.”
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection logo is displayed on the side of a patrol boat on September 26, 2025, in San Diego, California. (Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A Customs and Border Protection official on Friday told a federal judge that the agency does not have the technology or manpower to immediately process $166 billion in tariff refunds, arguing the process would distract from its role addressing “imminent threats to national security.”
In a sworn filing, the official said that CBP needs an additional 45 days to create a system to process refunds for the more than 53 million entries related to the unlawful tariffs.
“CBP has never been ordered to, nor has it attempted to, process a volume of refunds anywhere near the volume of total entries and Entry Summary lines on which IEEPA duties have been deposited,” wrote Brandon Lord, the executive director of CBP’s Trade Programs Directorate.
The disclosure comes two days after a judge from the Court of International Trade initially ordered the Trump administration to remove the tariffs from its backlog of import paperwork. Even though the liquidation process — when the agency finalizes a tariff payment after goods enter the country — is largely automated and the Supreme Court overturned the tariffs two weeks ago, Lord said that Customs and Border Protection “is not able to comply” with the court’s order.
“CBP is now facing an unprecedented volume of refunds. Its existing administrative procedures and technology are not well suited to a task of this scale and will require manual work that will prevent personnel from fully carrying out the agency’s trade enforcement mission,” Lord said.
According to Lord, the current system used to process tariffs cannot handle the volume of refund requests, and that doing so manually would take resources away from “responsibilities that serve to mitigate imminent threats to national security and economic security.”
Following a hearing on Friday related to the refund process, which was closed to the public, Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade suspended his earlier order to immediately begin recalculating tariffs dues.
By lifting his initial order, the judge appears to be making room for the refund process to play out, though the exact timeline of refunds remains unclear.
During previous hearings, the judge had expressed skepticism that the refund process would be a “mess” or that the government lacked the resources to issue refunds.
