Argument next in case 24-924, Hensley v. Flower Corporation. Mr. Chang?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, after the Army found that Floor's

disregard of key contractual requirements led to the bombing at Bogram, specialists

Hensley tried to seek some measure of justice, but the Fourth Circuit blocked his efforts

on a rationale that Floor doesn't defend.

Floor's alternative theories do not justify preemption here either.

First, Flore argues that the Constitution's structure, either by itself or through its

emanations of federal interests, preempts

hence Lee's claims. That argument has no basis in the Constitution's text, structure, and history.

Our Constitution presumes that state tort claims are available and leaves it to Congress to alter that default rule.

Congress has done so in some circumstances when it comes to federal contractors,

but it has not barred claims by American soldiers injured by a contractor negligence.

Second, Floor seeks to radically expand Boyle.

Boyle is a basis for reversing and not affirming the judgment.

Boyle recognized a limited defense for contractors who do what the government says.

Boyle doesn't apply here because the Army is self-found that Floor violated the Army's instructions.

Floor's contrary reading of Boyle contradicts Boyle itself, and it cannot be harmonized

with the warning in Rodriguez that judicial lawmaking should play a modest role, or the

teaching in Garcia that preemption cannot be based on un-codified interests.

I welcome the Court's questions.

Did respondent make the constitutional arguments below?

I believe it was included in a small portion of their Appalachian brief below, Your Honor.

...