Nick Feliciano, Petitioner v. Department of Transportation

The Supreme Court ruled that federal civilian employees who are also military reservists are entitled to differential pay whenever they are called to active duty during a national emergency. The Court decided that the law only requires the service to happen at the same time as an emergency, rather than being directly caused by it. This reversed a lower court decision that had denied pay to an air traffic controller because his specific duties weren't tied to the emergency.

This decision ensures that thousands of federal workers who serve in the reserves will receive extra pay to match their civilian salaries while deployed. For example, an air traffic controller or postal worker called to duty during a declared emergency will no longer lose income just because their mission wasn't specifically related to that emergency. It provides financial security for families of those who serve in both civilian and military roles.

The case centered on the word 'during' and whether it meant a simple time overlap or a deeper connection between two events. By choosing the simpler meaning, the Court avoided creating a complicated test for how closely a soldier's job must relate to a national crisis. This ruling follows a trend of the Court looking at the plain, everyday meaning of words in federal laws.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson.

“The plain meaning of 'during a national emergency' imposes only a temporal requirement: that the reservist’s service coincides in time with a declared national emergency.”

Federal reservists are now entitled to differential pay as long as their active duty occurs while a national emergency is active.

The case will return to the lower courts to finalize the specific payments owed to Nick Feliciano. Federal agencies will likely need to update their payroll policies to ensure all eligible reservists receive the correct differential pay moving forward. Other employees who were previously denied this pay may now seek back pay from the government.

The dispute was over whether 'during' meant just a period of time or if it required a direct link between a reservist's duty and a national emergency.

Federal employees in the military reserves will now receive extra pay to ensure their total income does not drop when they are called to active duty.

The Court established a 'temporal' rule, meaning the only requirement for pay is that the service happens while a national emergency is officially in effect.

The case is reversed and remanded (sent back) to the lower court to apply this new ruling to the specific facts of the employee's claim.

The ruling shows the Court's preference for following the literal text of a law rather than trying to guess what Congress intended beyond the written words.