White v. United States
Headline: Court rejects retired Navy officers’ claims for higher pay during later active-duty service, holding the 1913 pay law applies only to officers on the active list and affirming the lower court’s rulings.
Holding: The Court held that the 1913 statute granting higher pay applies only to officers on the active list, not retired officers later serving, and therefore rejected these officers’ claims for increased pay.
- Denies retroactive pay claims by retired Navy officers.
- Limits the 1913 pay law to officers on the active list.
Summary
Background
White and Ford were Navy officers who were placed on the retired list but later served on active duty for specific periods. White was transferred to the retired list in 1906 with the rank of Commander and was listed as a retired Commander from June 30, 1905, remaining on active duty through October 31, 1911. Ford retired in 1902 with the rank of Rear Admiral and served on active duty until December 25, 1907. Under existing practice they received pay and allowances tied to the rank they held before retirement. In 1913 Congress enacted a law saying officers advanced in grade since 1899 should get the pay and allowances of the higher grade from the dates on their commissions. The two officers sought the difference in pay for the times they were on active duty after retirement, and the Court of Claims sustained demurrers and dismissed their petitions.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the 1913 law covered all officers who had been advanced and at any time served on active duty, or only those who were on the active list when paid. The Court read the law to apply only to officers on the active list. It pointed out a general rule prohibiting retired officers from being employed on active duty in peacetime and noted a limited 1900 exception had expired before 1913. The Court said it was more reasonable to read the 1913 law as addressing current active-list situations, not as reopening completed pay matters long closed. The Court also noted a 1912 appropriation law that limited pay for recalled retired officers, and cited reports explaining the narrower purpose behind the 1913 enactment. For these reasons the Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal.
Real world impact
Retired Navy officers in similar situations cannot use the 1913 statute to claim retroactive higher pay for past periods of active service; the statute was read as limited to active-list officers and these particular pay claims were denied.
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?