Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 23-861Apr 30, 2025Armed Forces and National SecurityReversed

The question

Whether a federal civilian employee called to active duty during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay when the service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency, or only when the service bears a substantive connection to a particular emergency.

Feliciano v. Department Of Transportation

What the Court decided

Reversed. A federal civilian employee called to active duty under any provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay whenever the service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency, with no need to show a substantive connection to a particular emergency. The word "during" denotes a temporal link and means contemporaneous with, and when Congress wants both a temporal and a substantive connection it says so expressly.

How the justices split

5-4
In favor 5Against 4
Gorsuch
Roberts
Sotomayor
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Thomas
Alito
Kagan
Jackson

The Court's opinion

Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett

The statutory word during denotes a temporal link and means contemporaneous with, so a reservist called to active duty during a national emergency qualifies for differential pay whenever the service coincides with a declared national emergency. Congress requires both a temporal and a substantive connection only when it says so expressly, using phrases like during and in relation to, and the absence of such words here signals a temporal condition alone. Requiring a substantive connection would create interpretive difficulties, would clash with a parallel provision authorizing activation in time of national emergency, and would risk criminalizing differential pay paid by private employers, and the Congressional Budget Office scored similar legislation based on the total number of reservists on active duty.

Dissenting

Thomas, joined by Alito, Kagan, Jackson

The dissent disagreed with the majority's reading that the differential pay statute is satisfied by mere temporal coincidence with a declared national emergency.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Alito, Kagan, and Jackson.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • The Court held that a federal civilian employee called to active duty during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay if the service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency, without showing a substantive connection to a particular emergency.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The Court reasoned that the word during normally denotes a temporal link and means contemporaneous with, and does not generally imply a substantive connection.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The case came on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov