No. 23-861

Nick Feliciano v. Department of Transportation

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2024-02-12
Status: Judgment Issued
Type: Paid
Amici (9)Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: active-duty armed-services-reserve differential-pay due-process federal-civilian-employee federal-civilian-employees national-emergency reserve-component statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Arbitration ERISA JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-06-20 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents a question of critical importance to hundreds of thousands of Americans who serve their country both as federal civilian employees and members of the Armed Services’ reserve components. Congress enacted the differential pay statute, 5 U.S.C. § 5538, to eliminate the financial burden that reservists face when called to active duty at pay rates below their federal civilian salaries. To ensure that these reservists suffer no financial penalty for active-duty service, the differential pay statute requires that the government make up the difference. Federal civilian employees are entitled to differential pay when performing active duty “pursuant to a call or order to active duty under * * * a provision of law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10.” That section, Section 101(a)(18)(B), enumerates several statutory authorities and includes a catchall provision: “any other provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.” Recently, in a decision that departed from settled understandings of this language, the Federal Circuit held that reservists relying on Section 101(a)(13)(B)’s catchall provision to claim differential pay must show that they were “directly called to serve in a contingency operation.” Adams v. DHS, 3 F.Ath 1875, 1879 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Under that demanding, fact-intensive standard, the Federal Circuit has rejected claims for differential pay even by reservists like petitioner whose activation orders expressly invoked a presidential emergency declaration. The question presented is: Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

Docket Entries

2025-06-02
Judgment Issued.
2025-04-30
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-861_7lh8.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined.
2024-12-09
Argued. For petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
2024-12-06
Record received electronically from the Merit Systems Protection Board and available with the Clerk.
2024-10-31
Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The record is electronic and is available on PACER.
2024-10-28
2024-10-22
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
2024-10-22
CIRCULATED
2024-10-18
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 9, 2024.
2024-09-27
Brief of respondent Department of Transportation filed.
2024-09-06
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
2024-08-26
Amicus brief of Reserve Organization of America submitted.
2024-08-26
Amicus brief of Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. submitted.
2024-08-26
Amicus brief of American Federation of Government Employees submitted.
2024-08-26
Amicus brief of Texas, South Carolina, 18 Other States, and the District of Columbia submitted.
2024-08-26
Amicus brief of National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium submitted.
2024-08-26
2024-08-26
Brief amicus curiae of National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium filed.
2024-08-26
Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Government Employees filed.
2024-08-26
Brief amici curiae of Texas, South Carolina, 19 Other States, and the District of Columbia filed.
2024-08-26
2024-08-26
2024-08-19
2024-08-19
Brief of Nick Feliciano submitted.
2024-07-25
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Nick Feliciano.
2024-07-25
Motion of Nick Feliciano to dispense with joint appendix submitted.
2024-07-09
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 19, 2024. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 27, 2024.
2024-07-08
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
2024-07-08
Motion of Nick Feliciano for an extension of time submitted.
2024-06-24
Petition GRANTED.
2024-06-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024.
2024-05-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
2024-05-24
2024-05-13
Brief of respondent Department of Transportation in opposition filed.
2024-05-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 13, 2024.
2024-05-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 10, 2024 to May 13, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-04-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 10, 2024.
2024-04-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 12, 2024 to May 10, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-03-13
2024-03-13
2024-02-26
2024-02-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 12, 2024.
2024-02-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 13, 2024 to April 12, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-02-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 13, 2024)
2024-01-17
Application (23A653) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until February 8, 2024.
2024-01-11
Application (23A653) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 25, 2024 to February 8, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

American Federation of Government Employees
Matthew Whitmore MilledgeAmerican Federation of Government Employees, Amicus
Matthew Whitmore MilledgeAmerican Federation of Government Employees, Amicus
Department of Transportation
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Members of Congress
Daniel Stephen VolchokWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Amicus
Daniel Stephen VolchokWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Amicus
Timothy James TaylorHolland & Knight, LLP, Amicus
Timothy James TaylorHolland & Knight, LLP, Amicus
Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc.
Melanie Lynn BostwickOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
Melanie Lynn BostwickOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium
Katie Marie BeckerUniversity of Missouri Veterans Clinic, Amicus
Katie Marie BeckerUniversity of Missouri Veterans Clinic, Amicus
Nick Feliciano
Andrew Timothy TuttArnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Petitioner
Andrew Timothy TuttArnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Petitioner
Reserve Organization of America
Scott Andrew FelderWiley Rein LLP, Amicus
Scott Andrew FelderWiley Rein LLP, Amicus
Texas, et al.
Aaron Lloyd NielsonOffice of the Texas Attorney General, Amicus
Texas, South Carolina, 18 Other States, and the District of Columbia
Aaron Lloyd NielsonOffice of the Texas Attorney General, Amicus