...
By Mandy Taheri
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined four of the highest court's conservative justices Wednesday in a 5–4 decision requiring the federal government to provide individuals who serve in the military reserves equivalent pay to their civil servant salaries when called to active duty during a "national emergency."
Why It Matters
The court's ruling in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation has the potential to affect tens of thousands of reservists if they are called up for service during a national emergency.
Read More
Exclusive: David Hogg Says He’ll Fight for Democrats Even If They Oust Him6 min read
Democrats’ Chances of Beating GOP’s Jon Husted in Ohio, According to Polls5 min read
Trump Nominee Raises ‘Serious Questions’ for ‘Concerned’ Republican Senator3 min read
What To Know
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's decision in the case, with Sotomayor joining conservatives Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, along with fellow conservative Samuel Alito, along with liberals Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
At the heart of the case was a 2009 statute requiring "differential pay" for federal employees who serve as military reservists during a national emergency. The statute was designed to offset lost wages, as often reservists earn less in uniform than in their civilian jobs.
The legal question before the court was whether it is sufficient for a reservist to be called to active duty during a declared national emergency to qualify for the benefit, or if the reservist must prove a "substantive connection" to that specific emergency.
Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that "A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to 'any other provision of law...during a national emergency' is entitled to differential pay without having to prove that his service was substantively connected in some particular way to some particular emergency."
He argued that the terminology of "during" implies a temporal connection, meaning that they qualify if the national emergency is ongoing.
The ruling ensures that federal workers called to active duty won't suffer financially when temporarily leaving their civilian roles for military service.
The case centered on Nick Feliciano, an FAA air traffic controller who earned less while serving almost five years in the Coast Guard. He did not receive differential pay during that period.
In May 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Feliciano was not entitled to differential pay, writing that his "service does not qualify as an active duty contingency operation."
...
Thomas, in the dissent, argued that this interpretation has the possibility of making nearly all military operations qualify, writing: "If all military operations that occur concurrent with a national emergency are contingency operations, then any military operation requiring a call to active-duty service could be a contingency operation, regardless of whether there is any contingency involved."
He also pointed out the ongoing presence of national emergencies, saying, "With the exception of a 1-year interregnum from 1978 to 1979, the United States has had at least one national emergency in effect at all times since 1933...It strains credulity to think that Congress could have meant 'contingency operation' to mean, as a practical matter, essentially every military operation."
Thomas said that his "interpretive conclusion does not mean that Feliciano should be denied differential pay," but that it should return to a lower court.
What Happens Next
The ruling will prompt federal agencies to reassess the eligibility for differential pay among reservists.
This story includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Update 4/30/25, 1:07 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines