Babcock v. Kijakazi
View Official PDFSummary
A short, plain-English overview of Babcock v. Kijakazi.
In Babcock v. Kijakazi, the Supreme Court addressed whether civil-service pension payments for dual-status military technicians are considered payments based on 'service as a member of a uniformed service' under the Social Security Act. The Court found that such payments are not based on uniformed service, as dual-status technicians are classified as civilian employees. The decision affirmed the lower court's ruling that the windfall elimination provision applies to Babcock's benefits.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Babcock v. Kijakazi.
The Court held that civil-service pension payments for dual-status military technicians are not considered payments based on 'service as a member of a uniformed service' under 42 U. S. C. § 415(a)(7)(A)(III).
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Babcock v. Kijakazi that support the summary and concepts above.
Civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on 'service as a member of a uniformed service.'
Congress consistently distinguished technician employment from National Guard service.
Congress' civilian classification of dual-status technicians for 'bookkeeping' purposes controls when it comes to pay and benefits.
