Supreme Court Broadens Access to Differential Pay for Federal Reservists
In Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that expands the rights of federal civilian employees who serve as military reservists. Authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and decided on April 30, 2025, the opinion reverses a Federal Circuit ruling and holds that reservists called to active duty are entitled to differential pay if their service merely occurs during a declared national emergency—without needing to prove a direct connection between their duties and the emergency itself.
Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and a Coast Guard reservist, was ordered to active duty from 2012 to 2017 under 10 U.S.C. §12301(d). His service supported ongoing military operations like Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Despite this, the government denied him differential pay, arguing that his activation lacked a “substantive connection” to any specific national emergency. Both the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Circuit sided with the government, relying on precedent that required such a connection.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Citing the plain meaning of the word “during,” Justice Gorsuch emphasized that Congress used the term to establish a temporal, not substantive, requirement. The Court explained that “during a national emergency” means exactly what it says: if a reservist’s active duty overlaps with a declared national emergency, the statutory condition for differential pay is satisfied. It rejected the government’s argument that “during” implicitly required a connection beyond timing, noting that where Congress intends to impose such conditions, it uses clearer language—such as “during and in relation to.”
The Court also addressed policy concerns, including the potential cost implications and broad applicability of its ruling. It emphasized that interpreting statutes based on hypothetical anomalies or budget concerns is the job of Congress, not the judiciary. Notably, the Court pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office has historically based cost estimates for such laws on the total number of reservists on active duty, further affirming the broader understanding of eligibility.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented. The dissent warned that the majority’s approach risks treating nearly all military operations as “contingency operations,” since national emergencies are almost always in effect. He emphasized that such a reading undermines Congress’s intent and renders much of the statute’s specific language meaningless. According to the dissent, only service that directly responds to a national emergency should trigger eligibility for differential pay.
Despite the sharp divide, the ruling is a significant victory for reservists who balance civilian federal employment with military service. It simplifies the path to receiving pay differentials and reduces the administrative burden of proving that their service was substantively tied to a particular national crisis. As a result of this decision, Feliciano's case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s interpretation.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information summarized from the Supreme Court's decision, readers are encouraged to consult official sources or legal counsel for advice on specific cases.