October Term 2024 · Docket 23-861

Does differential pay apply to reservists called up during a national emergency?

The dispute centers on whether the word during limits pay to specific contingency operations or covers all active duty calls.

Official caption
Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Andrew Tutt argued the government abandoned the Adams rule.

    Tutt stated the rule requires a direct call to a contingency operation.

    Tutt claimed his client was not directly called into such an operation.

    Ms. Reaves argued the word during depends on context.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Feliciano seeks differential pay for his active duty service. The Department of Transportation denies the claim. The case tests the statutory scope of the word during.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Feliciano wants differential pay for his active duty service.

The Department of Transportation wants to deny the pay claim.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Feliciano argues the word during has multiple contextual meanings.

The Department of Transportation argues the Adams rule requires a direct call to a contingency operation.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked why Congress did not use simpler language for differential pay.

Justice Jackson asked if the practical effect of the side that brought the case's reading covers all reservists called up.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the financial scope of military reserve obligations. It clarifies statutory interpretation for future pay disputes. It impacts the budget for national emergency responses.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON