If you work for the federal government and spend your weekends in the military reserves, you probably know the drill. You get the call, you pack your bags, and you head out for active duty. But there’s a massive financial question that used to hang over these deployments: who covers the gap if your military pay is lower than your civilian salary?
For years, the answer was a legal mess. Feliciano v. Department of Transportation finally cleared the air, but the road to that decision was a slog through confusing statutes and cold-hearted bureaucracy. Honestly, it's the kind of case that sounds dry until you realize it’s actually about whether a soldier can pay their mortgage while serving their country.
The Air Traffic Controller Who Fought Back
Nick Feliciano wasn’t looking to become a Supreme Court headline. He was an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and a Petty Officer in the Coast Guard Reserve. In 2012, he was called to active duty to support "contingency operations" like Operation Iraqi Freedom.
For the first few months, things went according to plan. The FAA paid him differential pay—the money meant to make up the difference between his high-stress FAA salary and his Coast Guard pay. But when his orders were extended and he spent years escorting ships in and out of Charleston harbor, the money stopped.
The Department of Transportation basically told him, "Your service isn't 'connected' enough to the national emergency." They argued that just because he was serving during a national emergency didn't mean his specific job was because of it.
Imagine being told your military service doesn't count for a benefit because you aren't "emergency enough." That’s the hurdle thousands of reservists faced before this case.
💡 You might also like: How to Reach Donald Trump: What Most People Get Wrong
What "During" Actually Means in Court
The whole legal battle eventually boiled down to a single word: during.
Federal law (specifically 5 U.S.C. § 5538) says the government has to provide differential pay when a reservist is called to active duty "during a war or during a national emergency." The Department of Transportation and the Federal Circuit Court took a really strict view. They claimed you needed a "substantive connection."
"To prove a substantive connection... a reservist must show that he served in support of a contingency operation while on active duty." — Government argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation
The Federal Circuit had previously set a high bar in a case called Adams v. Department of Homeland Security. They wanted proof that the reservist was basically on the front lines of the emergency. If you were doing support work or harbor security like Feliciano, they figured you were out of luck.
The Gorsuch Majority
When the case hit the Supreme Court in late 2024, the justices weren't interested in the government's extra requirements. In April 2025, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for a 5-4 court. He kept it simple. He basically said that "during" means "at the same time as."
📖 Related: How Old Is Celeste Rivas? The Truth Behind the Tragic Timeline
There is no "and because of" or "directly related to" in the text of the law. If Congress wanted to make reservists jump through hoops to prove their service was "emergency-related," they would have written it that way.
The ruling was a win for textualism—the idea that judges should just read the words on the page. Since the U.S. has been under some form of declared national emergency almost continuously since 2001, this interpretation opens the door for a lot of people to get paid.
The Dissent: A Never-Ending Benefit?
Not everyone was happy. Justice Clarence Thomas led the dissent, and he brought up a pretty practical point. He noted that since 1933, there’s only been one year where the U.S. wasn’t in a state of national emergency.
If "during" just means a temporal overlap, then almost every federal reservist activated for the last two decades is suddenly entitled to back pay. The dissenters worried this would turn a specific emergency benefit into a permanent, universal pay raise for all federal reservists.
It’s a fair point from a budget perspective, but for the people wearing the uniform, the logic feels a bit different. If the government calls you away from your life, the financial hit shouldn't be your problem to solve.
👉 See also: How Did Black Men Vote in 2024: What Really Happened at the Polls
Why This Matters Right Now
This isn't just a win for Nick Feliciano; it’s a massive shift for the entire federal workforce. If you are a federal employee in the reserves, the Feliciano v. Department of Transportation ruling means:
- No more "connection" tests: You don't have to prove your unit's mission is tied to a specific disaster or war.
- Temporal focus: If a national emergency is active (which it almost always is), you are likely eligible for the pay gap coverage.
- Back pay potential: Thousands of employees who were denied differential pay over the last decade might have a claim now.
The case also highlights how much the "post-9/11" era changed the military. We rely on reservists for everything now, not just big wars. The Supreme Court finally acknowledged that the law shouldn't punish them for being "support staff" instead of "combat arms."
How to Check Your Eligibility
If you think you might be owed money because of this ruling, don't wait for the government to mail you a check. They aren't exactly known for being proactive with refunds.
- Review your past orders: Look for activations under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) or similar provisions that occurred during a declared emergency.
- Compare your pay stubs: Look at your FAA (or other agency) salary versus what you made on active duty. If there was a gap and you didn't get "Diff Pay," you've got a case.
- File with the MSPB: The Merit Systems Protection Board is where these claims usually start.
- Consult a veterans' law expert: Cases like this are why groups like the Reserve Organization of America (ROA) exist. They’ve been fighting this battle for years.
The Feliciano v. Department of Transportation decision is a reminder that sometimes, the simplest reading of the law is the right one. You serve, they pay. It shouldn't be more complicated than that.
Actionable Next Step: If you are a federal civilian employee who has served on active duty since 2012 without receiving differential pay, gather your Leave and Earnings Statements (LES) and your military orders. Submit a formal request for a pay audit to your agency's HR department, specifically citing the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation. Be prepared to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) if your agency denies the initial request based on outdated "substantive connection" internal policies.