Babcock v. Kijakazi

Background

David Babcock is a retired dual‑status military technician who worked full time as a civilian test pilot and instructor while also serving in the National Guard. He received a civil‑service pension for his technician job and a separate military pension for Guard service. When he applied for Social Security, the agency reduced his benefits under the windfall elimination rule because of his civil‑service pension; he argued that the pension fit an exception for payments based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the technician pension was payment "as" service in the National Guard. The Court read "as" to mean in the role, capacity, or function of a uniformed‑service member. It held Congress had repeatedly classified dual‑status technicians as civilian employees for pay and benefits, pointing to statutes that treat technicians as civilians and give them civil‑service rights and pensions. The Court concluded the technician pension was based on civilian employment, not on service "as" a Guard member, so the Social Security reduction could apply.

Real world impact

The decision means retired dual‑status technicians whose civil‑service pensions derive from their civilian technician work can face reduced Social Security benefits under the windfall rule. Military pensions for Guard service remain separate and do not trigger the reduction. The Court resolved a split among appeals courts on this statutory question.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Gorsuch dissented, arguing technicians effectively serve as Guard members in their daily duties, uniform, and discipline, and so their pensions should fit the uniformed‑service exception.