Nicole Van Dorn Preston, as Surviving Spouse and Personal Representative for the Estate of Lt. J. Wesley Van Dorn, Usn, Amy Snyder, as Surviving Spouse and Personal Representative for the Estate of Lt. Sean Christopher Snyder, Usn, Cheyenne Collins, as Surviving Spouse and Personal Representative for the Estate of Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Andrew Collins, Usn, And Petty Officer 2nd Class Dylan Morgan Boone, Usn v. M1 Support Services, L.P., 642 S.W.3d 452

Background

In Jan. 2014 an MH-53E Navy helicopter caught fire and crashed off Virginia; three servicemembers died and two were injured. Navy investigators found chafed fuel-transfer tubing and damaged wiring that likely allowed fuel into the cabin and ignition.
M1 Support Services (M1), a private contractor, performed phase maintenance on the helicopter ~3 months earlier under a Navy Performance Work Statement (PWS) and marked the aircraft “safe for flight.” The PWS prescribed maintenance cards that required inspection of fuel and vent lines.
Petitioners (surviving spouses/estate reps and an injured sailor) sued M1 under the Death on the High Seas Act and general maritime law alleging M1 negligently failed to detect/repair the damaged fuel tube and wiring.
M1 moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the political-question doctrine (relying on American K-9), arguing adjudication would require reviewing military decisions and that the Navy bore responsibility. Trial court granted the plea; court of appeals affirmed.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding the suit is justiciable because the claims target M1’s compliance with Navy maintenance directives (mechanical, not strategic, issues) and can be decided using judicially manageable standards without intruding on core military judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether political-question doctrine deprives state court of jurisdiction	Petitioners: claims are ordinary torts about contractor compliance with Navy maintenance instructions and thus justiciable	M1: adjudication would require reexamining military judgments and thus is nonjusticiable	Court: Justiciable — does not require impermissible intrusion into military strategy or judgment
Whether Navy exercised such control over M1 that contractor actions are de facto military decisions	Petitioners: Navy set requirements but left M1 discretion to perform inspections and repairs	M1: Navy prescribed staffing, schedules, directives and inspected/accepted work, showing control	Court: Evidence shows Navy provided guidance but left M1 discretion; control insufficient to make M1’s acts unreviewable
Whether asserting Navy’s negligence as a defense (or proportionate responsibility) creates a political question	Petitioners: Navy immunity does not preclude adjudication of contractor liability; review of Navy actions here is mechanical	M1: Navy maintenance practices and cannibalization of parts implicate strategic, nonjusticiable decisions	Court: M1 provided no jurisdictional evidence linking general Navy practices to this crash; Boyle-style government-contractor defenses do not automatically render case nonjusticiable
Whether defendant must adduce evidence to support a jurisdictional plea that relies on facts intertwined with the merits	Petitioners: trial court erred by resolving merits-entangled disputes prematurely	M1: the need to resolve military-fact issues itself implicates political question	Court: If jurisdictional plea depends on facts intertwined with merits, defendant must produce evidence; here M1 failed to show nonjusticiability

Key Cases Cited

American K-9 Detection Servs. v. Freeman, 556 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2018) (recognizing political-question doctrine limits in military-related suits but preserving ordinary tort review)
Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (government-contractor defense where compliance with federal specifications preempts state tort duties)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political-question factors and standards for justiciability)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (judicial power to review but limits where political discretion exists)
Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973) (military decisions may be nonjusticiable where judicial relief would intrude on military management)
Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (adjudication of mechanical causes in military aircraft crashes is appropriate)
Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., 724 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2013) (contractor must show evidence that servicemember negligence implicates political question)
Carmichael v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., 572 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2009) (extensive military control over contractor operations can create nonjusticiability)
McDermott v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (1994) (trier of fact may assess responsibility of settling parties for proportionate liability in maritime cases)
Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (bar to suits against the military under FTCA for injuries incident to service)