as all 3 liberals.

Here isa post here about an 8-0 decision (Alito recused himself) just last week for example

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3652056

But Thomas being on the same side of Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson is fairly common as many decisions are either unanimous or close to it.

I don't want to click a link to find out, maybe for details, but not for some sense of what the case is about.

Just saying.

is it? Just that they agree they should HEAR the case...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for a soldier seriously wounded while attempting to thwart a suicide bombing in Afghanistan to sue a contractor that the military found was negligent in the incident.

The 6-3 ruling will make it easier for soldiers hurt in combat zones to win damages if they allege that contractors are responsible for their injuries. Contractors have become a larger part of military operations around the world in recent years. Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., John G. Roberts Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented.

Military contractor Fluor Corporation hired Ahmad Nayeb to work at a U. S. base in Afghanistan as part of the “Afghan First” initiative, a military program that required contractors to hire Afghans to help stimulate the local economy and stabilize the Afghan Government. Nayeb, a Taliban operative, later carried out a suicide-bomb attack at the base that killed 5 and wounded 17. The Army’s investigation found Fluor primarily responsible for the attack because it negligently su- pervised Nayeb in complying with base procedures. Former Army spe- cialist Winston T. Hencely, who suffered a fractured skull and brain injuries in the course of stopping Nayeb before he could reach a larger crowd, sued Fluor in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina seeking damages under South Carolina law for neg- ligent supervision, negligent entrustment of tools, and negligent reten- tion of Nayeb. The District Court entered summary judgment for Fluor, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that during wartime, state-law claims against military contractors under military command arising out of combatant activities are preempted. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities ex- ception, which preserves the Federal Government’s immunity against claims “arising out of the combatant activities of the military” during wartime, 28 U. S. C. §2680(j), also reflects a congressional intent to bar tort suits against contractors connected with those combatant activi- ties, even when the contractor is alleged to have violated its instruc- tions from the military.

Held: The Fourth Circuit erred in finding Hencely’s state-law tort claims preempted where the Federal Government neither ordered nor author- ized Fluor’s challenged conduct. Pp. 5–15.