Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by Jake Leahy. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Jake Leahy or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Felicano v. Department of Transportation (Differential Pay / Veterans' Benefits)

8:27
 
Share
 

Manage episode 480138191 series 2286679
Content provided by Jake Leahy. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Jake Leahy or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

Send us a text

In Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “during a national emergency” in a federal statute granting differential pay to federal civilian employees who serve as reservists. Nick Feliciano, a federal air traffic controller and Coast Guard reservist, sought differential pay for his active-duty service from 2012 to 2017 under 5 U.S.C. §5538. His service orders cited support for operations like Iraqi Freedom, but he was activated under a statute not specifically named in the law. The question was whether Feliciano qualified for differential pay simply because his service coincided with a declared national emergency, or whether he needed to prove that his service was substantively connected to that emergency.

The Federal Circuit denied Feliciano’s claim, requiring a substantive link. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute’s plain language imposes a temporal condition only. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that the word “during” ordinarily conveys a timing requirement—not a purpose-based link—and that Congress knows how to demand a stronger nexus when it wants to. The Court found no statutory language or structure suggesting a substantive-connection requirement, noting that adding such a test would introduce interpretive confusion and possibly criminalize similar payments by private employers.

Justice Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson.

Read by RJ Dieken.

  continue reading

500 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 480138191 series 2286679
Content provided by Jake Leahy. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Jake Leahy or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

Send us a text

In Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “during a national emergency” in a federal statute granting differential pay to federal civilian employees who serve as reservists. Nick Feliciano, a federal air traffic controller and Coast Guard reservist, sought differential pay for his active-duty service from 2012 to 2017 under 5 U.S.C. §5538. His service orders cited support for operations like Iraqi Freedom, but he was activated under a statute not specifically named in the law. The question was whether Feliciano qualified for differential pay simply because his service coincided with a declared national emergency, or whether he needed to prove that his service was substantively connected to that emergency.

The Federal Circuit denied Feliciano’s claim, requiring a substantive link. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute’s plain language imposes a temporal condition only. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that the word “during” ordinarily conveys a timing requirement—not a purpose-based link—and that Congress knows how to demand a stronger nexus when it wants to. The Court found no statutory language or structure suggesting a substantive-connection requirement, noting that adding such a test would introduce interpretive confusion and possibly criminalize similar payments by private employers.

Justice Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson.

Read by RJ Dieken.

  continue reading

500 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Copyright 2025 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Copyright
Listen to this show while you explore
Play