Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court hears dispute over whether 'during' in differential-pay law is purely temporal or requires substantive link to emergencies
Summary
At oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, petitioner urged that the word "during" in the federal differential-pay statute be read as a temporal trigger that entitles reservists called to active duty during a declared emergency to differential pay; the government countered that "during" means "in the course of" and requires a substantive connection to the emergency, raising questions about administrative burden and potential criminal exposure for private employers.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation over what it means to be called to active military duty "during a national emergency" for purposes of the federal differential-pay statute.
Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Tutt, told the justices "this case turns on the meaning of the word during," arguing that Congress intended a straightforward temporal test: if a reservist is called to active duty during a declared war or national emergency, the employee is entitled to differential pay. He said that reading is consistent with ordinary meaning, fits the statutory cross-reference mechanism, and avoids unsolvable line-drawing problems for agencies and private employers.
The government, represented by Mr. Reeves, urged a different interpretation. "The word 'during' has…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat