Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Felicano v. Department of Transportation (Differential Pay / Veterans' Benefits)
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.
