Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Clash in Rare Supreme Court Split After 97% Agreement Rate

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, often aligned in their judicial votes, found themselves on opposite sides of a rare 6–3 Supreme Court decision issued on [DATE]. Their disagreement in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation marks a notable exception to their 97% agreement rate in the 2024-25 term, including a 100% alignment in closely divided cases (6-3 or 5-4).

The case stems from a 2019 suicide bombing at U.S. Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, carried out by a Taliban operative. Army Specialist Winston Hencely suffered severe injuries in the attack and later filed a negligence lawsuit in state court against Fluor Corporation, the U.S. military contractor that employed the bomber.

In its investigation, the U.S. Army faulted Fluor Corporation for failing to properly supervise local national employees, as required by their contract. The central legal question was whether Hencely’s state lawsuit could proceed or if it was preempted by federal law.

Majority Opinion: Thomas Rules in Favor of State Tort Law

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas held that Hencely’s state negligence suit may proceed. In his opinion, he stated:

"No provision of the Constitution and no federal statute justifies that preemption of the State's ordinary authority over tort suits. Nor does any precedent of this Court command such a result."

Thomas’ opinion was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Dissenting Opinion: Alito Warns of Federalism Overreach

In a sharp dissent, Justice Samuel Alito accused Thomas of prioritizing federalism at the expense of federal war powers. Alito wrote:

"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,' 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’s dissent was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

This alignment created an unusual judicial lineup: Thomas sided with all three Democratic appointees, while Alito secured only Roberts and Kavanaugh. The split highlights how principles of federalism can lead to unexpected judicial coalitions.

In Other Legal News: Trump Expects to Lose Birthright Citizenship Case

In a separate development, President Donald Trump indicated on social media this week that he expects to lose the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara. His comments suggest growing concern over the legal challenges to his administration’s policies on citizenship.