Supreme Court Sides With Reservists in Dispute Over Active Duty Pay
The ruling may have an impact on tens of thousands of government employees or more.
The majority
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Air traffic controller Nick Feliciano argued that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is part of the Department of Transportation, should have provided him full pay after his two years of involuntary work as a reservist for the U.S. Coast Guard was completed in 2014.
Feliciano was required to perform work as a reservist, escorting military vessels in the Charleston, South Carolina, harbor during national emergencies related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to his
Related Stories
4/30/2025
4/30/2025
Reservists' pay is often lower than the pay they receive for their federal civilian jobs.
To make sure reservists do not suffer a financial disadvantage for their active-duty service, a differential pay statute states that the government must pay them their salary for the federal civilian job during reserve service.
For the two years after he was called up in 2012, Feliciano's pay was topped up under the differential pay law. In 2014, Feliciano extended his work as a reservist until 2017, but for those three years, he received only reservist-level pay, according to court papers.
Feliciano argued he should have received the higher pay for the three years because the Reservists Pay Security Act requires it when a reservist has to go on duty 'during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.'
Feliciano argued he should receive the higher pay because he served during the national emergency that was declared at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In its new ruling, the Supreme Court found that the pay of reservists called to active duty during an emergency should be equal to the pay they would have received from their federal civilian jobs.
'A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to 'any other provision of law ... during a national emergency' is entitled to differential pay without having to prove that his service was substantively connected in some particular way to some particular emergency,' Gorsuch wrote.
In his dissent, Thomas wrote that the court was called upon to decide the meaning of the phrase 'during a national emergency.'
'Depending on the context, that phrase could require only that a national emergency be concurrently ongoing, or it could require that a reservist's service also be in support of a particular national emergency. Given the context here, I would conclude that a reservist is called to serve 'during a national emergency' only if his call comes in the course of an operation responding to a national emergency,' Thomas wrote.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hillary Clinton warns SCOTUS 'will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion'
Hillary Clinton believes the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn marriage equality, and she's urging LGBTQ+ couples to get married while they still can. The former Secretary of State and presidential candidate predicted that the court would reverse Obergefell v. Hodges in an interview with Jessica Tarlov of Fox News' The Five, warning that "there are going to be real world consequences." "American voters, and to some extent the American media, don't understand how many years the Republicans have been working in order to get us to this point," Clinton said. "It took 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage. My prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion. They will send it back to the states." WATCH: @HillaryClinton predicts to @JessicaTarlov that SCOTUS will overturn marriage equality and 'send it back to the states' (like abortion) — leading to a ban in much of 🇺🇸 On Trump & Republicans stealing seats: 'they don't want a fair fight' Full: If the Supreme Court reverses Obergefell , marriages between same-sex couples will still be recognized federally under the Respect for Marriage Act. Signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, the act mandates that the federal government recognizes same-sex and interracial marriages, and that all states recognize those performed in other states. The act does not require states to allow marriages between same-sex couples. As state bans on these unions were struck down in Obergefell, such bans could be enacted again if Obergefell is overturned. If that were to happen, the fallout would likely be similar to that after Roe v. Wade's reversal, in which red states immediately enacted bans. Related: While the Supreme Court has made no official move to reconsider marriage equality, nine states have recently introduced resolutions asking the court to hear the case again. None have yet passed, and even if they were to, the resolutions are nonbinding — meaning they carry no legal weight, and the court is not obligated to hear them. However, some justices have voiced opposition to Obergefell even after the ruling. When the conservative majority created by Donald Trump overturned Roe v. Wade, Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion at the time that the court should also revisit and overrule decisions that prevent state restrictions on contraception, marriage equality, sodomy, and other private consensual sex acts, calling the rulings "demonstrably erroneous." "Anybody in a committed relationship out there in the LGBTQ community, you ought to consider getting married," Clinton continued. "'Cause I don't think they'll undo existing marriages, but I fear that they will undo the national right." This article originally appeared on Advocate: Hillary Clinton warns SCOTUS 'will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion' RELATED Gay weddings have boosted state and local economies by $6 billion since marriage equality Idaho Republicans' resolution to repeal marriage equality is 'foreshadowing' for the U.S. New poll finds record-low support of marriage equality from Republicans since Obergefell v. Hodges
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
The plot to destroy Black political power
Get ready for the rage: The conservative majority on the Supreme Court looks likely to gut the last remaining parts of the Voting Rights Act. Prompted by a Black conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court will consider in October a question that answers itself — whether it is wrong to stop openly racist tactics in drawing congressional districts. Even if the right-wing justices manage to close their eyes to the racial politics involved, they will feel the heat and hear the explosive impact of the backlash to a one-sided ruling. The fuse will be lit in several Republican-controlled states, largely in the South, as white politicians begin diluting votes in Black-majority districts to silence Black voices in Congress. Deep-red state legislatures — think of South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi — will be free to demolish their Black-majority congressional districts. Those white-majority, Trump-backing state legislatures aim to bring an end to the careers of several Black Democrats in Congress, such as Reps. Cleo Fields (D-La.), Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). As a purely political exercise, Trump and his Republican allies have wanted to eliminate these districts for years, because Black voters are key to the Democratic Party's congressional strength. The Voting Rights Act allows for federal courts to look for racial damage done by gerrymandering districts. In the case now before the high court, involving redistricting in Louisiana, the state was forced to add a second Black-majority district. A federal court ruled that, with 33 percent of the state being Black, it was wrong for only one of its six congressional districts to be majority Black. But that led to a lawsuit over the new map. Along the lines of Thomas's recent call for a total end to the Voting Rights Act, the challengers contend that the law — which was created to protect equal voting rights for Black Americans — now prohibits the court from stopping white Republicans from playing politics and crushing Black power as a proportional representation of a state's racial makeup. Thomas makes the case that attention to 'race-based' construction of congressional districts is out of touch with recent history. He argues that 'specific identified instances' of racial bias, including violent voter suppression, are now distant and amount to relics of the nation's past. Last week, a federal appeals court disagreed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Louisiana's congressional district map 'packed' and 'cracked' Black populations to limit their political power. The ruling stated there are 'decades of binding precedent' under the 15th Amendment allowing Congress to contest racial bias in redistricting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was written in response to the nation's long history of keeping political power in white hands. Even after Black men gained the right to vote, it was common for that vote to be suppressed through violence. For perspective, South Carolina is 26 percent Black and 67 percent white. But white-majority Republican congressional districts are 86 percent of South Carolina's seven congressional districts. Only one of seven districts has a majority of Democrats and Black voters — Clyburn's district. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on racial redistricting on Oct. 15 — early enough for a decision that could affect the 2026 midterms. If the Black vote is diluted, the Democratic Party's ability to win seats in Congress shrinks, increasing Republican chances of retaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2026. That would keep Trump from becoming a lame duck facing a divided Congress. The Republicans' goal is to maintain majorities in Congress for Trump's last two years in the White House. Then Republicans can appoint more judges to issue more rulings that further weaken Democrats. The downward spiral for Black political power will go on and on. Trump is not hiding his interest in the outcome of gerrymandering efforts in Texas. 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats,' Trump told CNBC earlier this month. 'We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas … and we are entitled to five more seats.' Excuse me, Mr. President? Neither you nor the Republican Party is entitled to any seats. Those seats belong to Americans of all colors and parties. Texas Republicans' threats to send law enforcement to forcibly return Texas Democratic legislators to the state capitol to provide a quorum for passing gerrymandered maps are a sideshow. They distract from the real effect that racially-designed gerrymandering can have on race relations and politics for decades to come. Comedian Dave Chappelle famously called Trump 'an honest liar.' In the fight over Texas redistricting, the 'honest liar' is saying that the people looking at redistricting's racial impact are themselves racist. Don't let Trump or his partisans on the high court fool you. Racial justice in Congress is at stake. Democrats will have to fight fire with fire to prevent Trump from diminishing Black voting power. Democrats owe that much to Black voters, who have carried them to electoral victories over the last 60 years. They owe it to the memory of the brave people who marched, were beaten and even died to demand voting rights only 60 years ago.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
LILLEY: Here's the legal reason the Air Canada strike will only end at the table
The Air Canada strike is only going to end one way: With a negotiated settlement. The union is defiant, Canadians love to hate Air Canada so much of the public will back the union, and Patty Hajdu's attempt to force the workers back on the job was an illegal and unconstitutional move. That's right, the government was going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or at least how some liberal judges on the Supreme Court interpreted it back in 2015. Back-to-work legislation or using Section 107 of the Canadian Labour Code simply won't cut it anymore. 'The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining, it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me to be the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction,' Justice Rosalie Abella wrote in a 2015 decision. And with those words, Abella upended decades of Canadian jurisprudence that had multiple times said that there was no Charter-protected right to strike. The case, called Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, challenged two provincial laws including one that declared some government workers to be engaged in essential services and not allowed to strike. In her long and rambling decision, Abella cited British labour practices from the 1700s, British and American labour law, German labour law, and even the European Social Charter to make her political rather than legal case. Even her phrase that 'It seems to me to be the time …' shows this was a personal and political decision rather than one based in Canadian law. In case after case, the Supreme Court had found there was no constitutional right to strike and cautioned against courts imposing strict and rigid laws on a delicate process. In a 2002 decision involving striking Pepsi workers, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote of the need for courts to be cautious. 'Judging the appropriate balance between employers and unions is a delicate and essentially political matter,' she wrote. 'This is the sort of question better dealt with by legislatures than courts. Labour relations is a complex and changing field, and courts should be reluctant to put forward simplistic dictums.' As recently as 2011, the Supreme Court had rejected that there was a Charter-protected constitutional right to strike. In 2015, led by Abella, the majority on the court, including McLachlin, found that the Charter's guarantee of the freedom of association in section 2(d) included the right to strike and threw away all precedents. 'The majority has so inflated the right to freedom of association that its scope is now wholly removed from the words of s. 2(d),' the dissenting justices wrote in response to Abella's decision. So, although many don't realize this, tools that governments once used, such as back-to-work legislation, to end disruptive strikes like Air Canada's current situation are now null and void. Their validity is being fought in the courts and will eventually come down on the side of the unions. It was for this reason that Ontario Premier Doug Ford used the notwithstanding clause when introducing back-to-work legislation for education workers in 2022. By recognizing the Charter right to strike, Abella took away those tools. We will likely soon find the minister of labour's ability to order people into arbitration and to 'maintain or secure industrial peace' won't be considered constitutional either. Which means that Air Canada and CUPE, representing the striking flight attendants, will continue to battle it out in the court of public opinion. Whichever one can gain the biggest PR win will win at the negotiating table. This is essentially a political and public relations war between a company and employees, which is why previous court judgments had recommended against the court getting involved in such disputes. If only the majority in 2015 had listened to their own precedent instead of Abella's flight of fancy.
