Babcock v. Kijakazi

Petitioner David Babcock worked as a dual-status military technician for the National Guard and later as a civilian federal employee. Upon retirement, he applied for Social Security benefits, but the Social Security Administration reduced his payments under the Windfall Elimination Provision. Babcock argued that his service as a National Guard technician constituted "uniformed service" under the Social Security Act, which should exempt him from the reduction. The District Court ruled in his favor, but the Sixth Circuit reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether National Guard technician service qualifies as uniformed service for purposes of the Social Security Act's pension offset exemption.

The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit in an 8-1 decision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion holding that Babcock's service as a National Guard technician qualified as uniformed service under the plain text of the statute, and therefore his pension should not trigger the Windfall Elimination Provision. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

Whether a dual-status National Guard technician's service constitutes "service as a member of a uniformed service" under 42 U.S.C. §415(a)(7)(A), thereby exempting their pension from triggering the Windfall Elimination Provision that reduces Social Security benefits.

The ruling provided clarity for thousands of dual-status military technicians who serve in the National Guard and Reserves while also holding federal civilian positions. It ensured they receive full Social Security benefits without reduction under the Windfall Elimination Provision, recognizing their dual-status service as legitimate uniformed military service deserving of full retirement benefits protection. The decision also prompted the Social Security Administration to revise its policies and manual instructions regarding benefit calculations for veterans with similar service backgrounds.