News and analysis right to your inbox. Click to get Ballotpedia’s newsletters!

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 14:57, 10 March 2025 by Ellie Mikus (contribs) (SG component)
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Feliciano v. Department of Transportation
Docket number: 23-861
Term: 2024
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argued: December 9, 2024
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

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


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."[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • 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:[2]

    The following summary of the case was published by SCOTUSblog:[4]

    “

    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.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • December 9, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • June 24, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • February 8, 2024: Nick Feliciano appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • May 15, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's judgment, denying his request for differential pay for his military service in the U.S. Coast Guard.[6]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[7]

    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.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    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.[10]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Feliciano v. Department of Transportation PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," filed February 8, 2024
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-861," accessed August 13, 2024
    3. ↑ Note: At the time that the Court heard this case's argument, legal counsel was provided by then-U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar. Prelogar stepped down from her position on January 20, 2025, following the swearing-in of President Donald Trump (R) to his second term. After taking office, Trump appointed Sarah M. Harris to serve as the acting U.S. Solicitor General until her successor is confirmed and sworn in.
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, ""Court adds seven cases to next term’s docket,"" accessed August 13, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Feliciano v. Dep't of Transp., decided May 15, 2023
    7. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named qp
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 9, 2024
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued December 9, 2024
    10. ↑ 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=10276705"