United States v. Moran
Headline: Court affirms that a Coast Guard master at arms must be paid the Navy chief master at arms rate and receives $260.50 in back pay under the 1917 pay law.
Holding: The Court affirmed the lower court’s award and held that a Coast Guard master at arms is entitled to the Navy chief master at arms pay rate and $260.50 in unpaid wages under the 1917 Act.
- Requires the Government to pay Coast Guard master at arms the Navy-equivalent pay rate.
- Orders repayment of $260.50 in unpaid wages for the 1917–1918 period.
- Applies the same statute to similarly situated Coast Guard personnel.
Summary
Background
A Coast Guard sailor, Moran, sued the Government for unpaid wages. He enlisted in the Revenue Cutter Service (now the Coast Guard) as an ordinary seaman and rose to the rank of master at arms. His duties matched those of a Navy chief master at arms, and he argued that under the Act of May 22, 1917, he should have been paid at that higher Navy rate during active service from August 1, 1917, to December 31, 1918.
Reasoning
The central question was whether Moran was entitled to the Navy chief master at arms pay rate minus the pay he already received in his lower grade. The Court relied on the findings of the Court of Claims and on the related Allen decision decided the same day. The lower court calculated that Moran should have received $1,790.50 but had been paid $1,530.00, leaving $260.50 due. The Supreme Court agreed with those findings and affirmed the judgment ordering that sum paid.
Real world impact
The ruling enforces pay parity under the 1917 statute for this sailor and confirms a money award for underpaid wages. It directly affects service members in the Coast Guard whose duties correspond to higher Navy grades and who seek similar pay adjustments. This is a narrow statutory wage decision tied to the specific facts and the 1917 law, not a broad change in military policy.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?