Babcock v. Kijakazi
Issues
Under the Social Security Act’s Windfall Elimination Provision, does the uniform-services exemption apply to Civil Service Retirement System payments derived from service as a dual-status technician?
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the uniformed services exemption under the Social Security Act applies to the Civil Service Retirement System pensions of dual-status technicians. Petitioner David Babcock argues that the entirety of his service as a dual-status technician was as a uniformed member of the National Guard and he thus should entirely fall under the exemption. The Social Security Administration, under Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi, argues that the portion of Babcock’s service as a dual-status technician that was compensated by the Civil Service Retirement System pension was performed in his capacity as a civilian employee and therefore it should not fall under the exemption. The outcome of this case will impact the benefits available to dual-status technicians and clarify the distinction between dual-status technicians and other military personnel.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a civil service pension received for federal civilian employment as a “militarytechnician (dual status)” is “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision.
From 1975 to 2014, Petitioner David Babcock (“Babcock”) was employed as a National Guard dual-status technician. Babcock v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. at 1–2. A dual-status technician, under 10 U.S.C. § 10216(a)(1) and 32 U.S.C.
The authors would like to thank Professor Jed Stiglitz for his guidance and insights
into this case.
Additional Resources
- Babcock v. Saul, Ballotpedia (accessed Oct. 4, 2021).
- Cassie Maas, Supreme Court to hear Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Act cases, Jurist (March 1, 2021).