Are You a Federal Employee and Military Reservist? A Recent Supreme Court Decision May Entitle You to Differential Pay

If you’re a federal civilian employee who also serves as a military reservist or member of the National Guard, a significant Supreme Court decision issued April 30, 2025, may directly impact your paycheck.

In Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the rights of federal employees called to active military duty.[1]  Under 5 U.S.C. § 5538, federal employees are entitled to “differential pay”—compensation equal to the difference between their civilian and military salaries—when called to active duty during a declared national emergency. Crucially, the Supreme Court ruled that this entitlement applies regardless of whether your military duties directly relate to the emergency itself.

What does this mean for you?

• If you were activated during any declared national emergency since July of 2012, you may now be eligible for differential pay, even if your specific duties weren’t directly tied to that emergency.  Given the continuous declarations of national emergency since 1979, this significantly broadens potential eligibility.
• This decision simplifies eligibility and could mean significant back pay for federal employees.

Why choose our firm?

As an Army veteran and former federal employee myself, I uniquely understand the complexities you face in balancing civilian employment and military service. Our law firm is dedicated to ensuring you receive all the benefits you’ve earned through your service.

If you’re a federal employee and reservist unsure about your rights or eligibility under this important Supreme Court decision, contact our office today for a free consultation. Let’s ensure you’re fully compensated for your commitment to both federal civilian service and military duty.

Contact Tony Mastando

(256) 532-2222
Toll free: (800) 434-7195

Complete our intake questionnaire to help determine whether you qualify. 
https://forms.gle/eckaKdK7aybStR1N9

Disclaimer: No representation is made that the quality of legal services performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

[1] — S. Ct. —, 2025 WL 1239835