Felicano v. Department of Transportation (Differential Pay / Veterans' Benefits)
Send us a textIn 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.
--------
8:27
Advocate Christ v. Kennedy (Social Security Benefits)
Send us a textIn Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court addressed how to calculate the Medicare “disproportionate share hospital” (DSH) adjustment—a statutory formula that provides extra funding to hospitals serving many low-income patients. At issue was how to interpret the term “entitled to [SSI] benefits” in the Medicare fraction of that formula. A coalition of over 200 hospitals argued that this phrase should include all patients enrolled in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) system, regardless of whether they actually received SSI payments during the month of their hospital stay. The Department of Health and Human Services, by contrast, only counted patients who were actually eligible for a cash SSI payment during their hospitalization month.Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett rejected the hospitals’ broader interpretation. The Court held that a person is “entitled to SSI benefits” only if they are eligible for a cash SSI payment during the specific month of their hospital stay. The Court emphasized that SSI benefits are determined monthly and are strictly cash-based under subchapter XVI. It dismissed the hospitals’ argument that noncash services like Medicaid continuation or vocational training should count, finding those benefits either irrelevant or located in different statutory subchapters.The Court also distinguished this case from Empire Health, a prior decision interpreting Medicare Part A entitlement, explaining that SSI and Medicare are fundamentally different programs—SSI requires fluctuating monthly eligibility based on income and resources, while Medicare provides broader and more automatic coverage.The Court ultimately upheld the D.C. Circuit’s decision and ruled in favor of HHS. Justice Barrett’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor.Read by RJ Dieken.
--------
13:09
Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi (Immigration)
Send us a textIn Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi the Supreme Court held that when a voluntary departure deadline under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2) lands on a weekend or legal holiday, it carries over to the next business day. Monsalvo Velázquez had been granted 60 days to voluntarily depart the U.S. He filed a motion to reopen on the following Monday after day 60 fell on a Saturday. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Tenth Circuit rejected the motion as late, reading “60 days” to mean calendar days, no exceptions. The Court reversed. Drawing on longstanding legal and regulatory practice, the majority held that “days” in this context includes the standard rule: deadlines falling on a weekend or holiday extend to the next business day. Congress legislated against that backdrop, and nothing in the statute suggested a break from it. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in part. Alito and Barrett also filed separate dissents.
--------
6:03
Cunningham v. Cornell (ERISA)
Send us a textIn Cunningham v. Cornell University, the Supreme Court addressed a fundamental pleading question under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Petitioners—former and current Cornell University employees—alleged that university fiduciaries violated ERISA §1106(a)(1)(C) by causing their retirement plans to pay excessive fees for recordkeeping services to Fidelity and TIAA-CREF, both parties in interest. The Second Circuit dismissed the claim, holding that plaintiffs must also plead that the transaction wasn’t exempt under §1108(b)(2)(A), which allows for reasonable arrangements with service providers.The Supreme Court unanimously reversed. Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor held that §1106(a)(1)(C) sets out a categorical bar against certain transactions between plans and parties in interest, and plaintiffs need only plausibly plead the elements of that section to state a claim. The §1108 exemptions—such as those permitting “reasonable arrangements” for necessary services—are affirmative defenses that defendants must raise and prove. Citing Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab, the Court emphasized that statutory exemptions laid out in separate provisions do not become part of a plaintiff’s burden unless Congress says otherwise.Just Sotomayor writing for a unanimous Court. Justice Alito filed a concurrence, joined by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh.Read by Jeff Barnum.
--------
6:16
Trump v. J. G. G. (Immigration / Habeas)
Send us a textIn Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. J.G.G., et al., the Supreme Court granted the government’s application to vacate temporary restraining orders issued by the District Court for the District of Columbia, which had blocked the removal of several Venezuelan detainees allegedly affiliated with the foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). The detainees challenged President Trump’s Proclamation No. 10903, issued under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), which authorized their detention and removal.The Court construed the TROs as appealable injunctions and held that the detainees’ claims must be brought in habeas corpus. Because the claims necessarily challenged the legality of confinement and removal under the AEA, they fell within the “core” of habeas jurisdiction. As such, jurisdiction and venue lay solely in the district of confinement—Texas—not in the District of Columbia. The Court emphasized that equitable relief cannot be sought outside habeas in this context, relying on precedents such as Ludecke v. Watkins and Heikkila v. Barber.Although the detainees are entitled to judicial review regarding their classification and removal under the AEA—including notice and an opportunity to seek habeas relief—the proper venue to litigate those claims is the district of confinement. The Court clarified that such notice must be given promptly to allow detainees to exercise those rights before removal occurs.Read by RJ Dieken.
About 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.
Australia