SCOTUS Clarifies Differential Pay for Reservists During National Emergencies

The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, addressing the issue of differential pay for federal civilian employees who serve as military reservists.

Background.

Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the Federal Aviation Administration and a Coast Guard reserve petty officer, was called to active duty from July 2012 to February 2017. Despite serving under orders that referenced support for contingency operations, Feliciano did not receive differential pay, which led him to seek relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board.

After his claims were rejected, Feliciano appealed to the Federal Circuit, which upheld the denial of differential pay based on its precedent requiring a substantive connection between the reservist’s service and a national emergency.

Law.

The central legal question in the case revolved around the interpretation of two statutes: 5 USC § 5538(a) and 10 USC § 101(a)(13)(B). Section 5538(a) mandates differential pay for federal civilian employee reservists ordered to active duty under provisions of law referred to in §101(a)(13)(B).

The latter defines “contingency operation” as a military operation resulting in the call to active duty under specific statutes or “any other provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.” The debate was whether the phrase “during a national emergency” required a temporal overlap or a substantive connection between the reservist’s service and the emergency.

Ruling.

In a decision delivered by Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s ruling, clarifying that federal civilian employees called to active duty under “any other provision of law” during a national emergency are entitled to differential pay based solely on the temporal coincidence of their service with the emergency.

The Court emphasized that the word “during” typically denotes a temporal link and does not imply a substantive connection unless explicitly stated by Congress. The ruling rejected the need for a substantive connection, noting that Congress has used specific language in other statutes when such a connection is required.

The Court also highlighted that the interpretation aligns with the ordinary understanding of the statutory language and avoids interpretive difficulties. The decision ensures that reservists serving during declared national emergencies receive differential pay without proving a direct link to the specific emergency, providing clarity and consistency in the application of the law.