Feliciano v. Department of Transportation

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Feliciano v. Department of Transportation
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: December 9, 2024
Decided: April 30, 2025
Outcome
reversed
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 30, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 9, 2024.

In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that a federal civilian employee called to active duty according to “any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency” is entitled to differential pay without having to prove that their service was substantively connected to some particular emergency. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the differential pay statute—5 U.S.C. § 5538—enacted by Congress to ensure that civilian federal employees who are also armed forces reservists are paid at their higher civilian salary than their lower military salary during their deployment. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency."[2]
  • The outcome: In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    The following summary of the case was published by SCOTUSblog:[5]

    “

    In Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, the justices agreed to weigh in on whether a federal civilian employee who is called to active military duty during a national emergency is entitled to receive differential pay – compensation for the difference between his civilian pay and his military pay – even if his duty is not directly connected to that national emergency. The question comes to the court in the case of Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller who was called to active duty in the Coast Guard, where he manned a vessel in and around the Charleston, S.C., harbor.[6]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[8]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.[6] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[9]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[10]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that a federal civilian employee called to active duty according to “any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency” is entitled to differential pay without having to prove that their service was substantively connected to some particular emergency. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “

    (a) Several considerations support this interpretation. First, the word 'during' normally 'denotes a temporal link' and means 'contemporaneous with.' United States v. Ressam, 553 U. S. 272, 274–275. It does not generally imply any substantive connection. Absent evidence that Congress intended a specialized meaning, those governed by law are entitled to rely on its ordinary meaning.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    Federal civilian employees who also serve as military reservists are entitled to “differential pay” when they are called to active-duty service “during a national emergency.” See 5 U. S. C. §5538; 10 U. S. C. §101(a)(13)(B). Differential pay compensates such reservists for the difference between their military and civilian salaries when active-duty service would otherwise cause a pay cut. The question before us is what Congress meant by the phrase “during a national emergency.” Depending on the context, that phrase could require only that a national emergency be concurrently ongoing, or it could require that a reservist’s service also be in support of a particular national emergency. Given the context here, I would conclude that a reservist is called to serve “during a national emergency” only if his call comes in the course of an operation responding to a national emergency. Because the Court requires only that an emergency be concurrently ongoing, I respectfully dissent.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[11]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, "Feliciano v. Department of Transportation," April 30, 2025
    2. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Feliciano v. Department of Transportation PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," filed February 8, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-861," accessed August 13, 2024
    4. ↑ Note: When this case was argued, counsel was given by former United States Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, ""Court adds seven cases to next term’s docket,"" accessed August 13, 2024
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Feliciano v. Dep't of Transp., decided May 15, 2023
    8. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named qp
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 9, 2024
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued December 9, 2024
    11. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Feliciano_v._Department_of_Transportation&oldid=10454197"