It came from a 1986 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversing a jury verdict for Boyle on the grounds that government contractors are immune from liability for design defects in military equipment.

[2] Boyle's family sued the manufacturer of the helicopter under a theory of common law tort products liability.

Like federal officials carrying out their duties, military contractors designing equipment "implicat[es] the same interest in getting the Government's work done."

[1] Justice Scalia also noted that increased costs from civil liability will be "passed through, substantially if not totally, to the United States itself.

The Court settled on a three-part test to determine whether a defendant is entitled to military contractor liability.

"[1] Brennan also criticized the majority's use of the Federal Tort Claims Act's "discretionary function" exception to justify the military contractor immunity doctrine.

Brennan also argued the majority's standard would allow "perhaps no more than a rubber stamp from a federal procurement officer who might or might not have noticed or cared about the defects, or even had the expertise to discover them.