Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-480_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 12

2 

BABCOCK v. KIJAKAZI 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

private security guards.  Ante, at 6.  But to my mind dual- 
status  technicians  are  more  like  part-time  police  officers
employed in their outside hours by the same police depart-
ment to train recruits,  administer the precinct office, and
repair squad cars—all on the condition that they wear their 
police uniforms and maintain their status as officers.  I sus-
pect  most  reasonable  officers  in  that  situation  would  con-
sider the totality of their work to constitute “service as . . . 
member[s]”  of  the  police  force.  So  too  here  I  expect  most
Guardsmen  who  serve  as  “dual-status  technicians”—who 
come to work every day for the Guard, in a Guard uniform,
and subject to Guard discipline—would consider all of their 
work to represent “service as . . . member[s]” of the National 
Guard.  I would honor that reasonable understanding and 
would not curtail servicemembers’ Social Security benefits
based primarily on implications extracted from other, sep-
arate “bookkeeping” statutes.  Ante, at 7.