Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-480_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

BABCOCK v. KIJAKAZI 

Opinion of the Court 

Babcock then sued in federal court.  The District Court 
upheld the agency’s decision.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed, 
concluding  that  Babcock’s  civil-service  pension  payments 
were based on service in a civilian capacity  and therefore 
did not fall within the uniformed-services exception.  Bab-
cock  v.  Commissioner  of  Social  Security,  959  F. 3d  210 
(2020).  While  most  circuits  to  address  the  question  have 
reached the same result, one has come out the other way.2 
We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  the  split.    592  U. S.  ___ 
(2021). 

II 
Babcock argues that the agency and courts below erred 
in  reducing  his  Social Security  benefits  based  on  his  pen-
sion for technician employment.  The dispute is narrow: All
agree that Babcock’s separate military pension for his Na-
tional Guard service does not trigger the windfall elimina-
tion provision.  And all agree that Civil Service Retirement 
System pensions generally do trigger that provision.  The 
only question is whether Babcock’s civil-service pension for 
technician work avoids triggering the provision’s reduction
in benefits because it falls within the exception for “a pay-
ment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed 
service.”  42  U. S. C.  §415(a)(7)(A)(III).  The  answer  de-
pends  on  whether  Babcock’s  technician  work  was  service
“as” a member of the National Guard.  See §410(m) (defin-
ing “member of a uniformed service” to include a member of 
a  “reserve  component”  as  defined  in  38  U. S. C.  §101(27),
which  includes  the  Army  National  Guard  of  the  United
States).3 
—————— 

2 Compare Linza v. Saul, 990 F. 3d 243 (CA2 2021); Newton v. Com-
missioner Social Security, 983 F. 3d 643 (CA3 2020); Larson v. Saul, 967 
F. 3d  914  (CA9  2020);  Kientz  v.  Commissioner,  SSA,  954  F. 3d  1277 
(CA10 2020); Martin v. SSA, Comm’r, 903 F. 3d 1154 (CA11 2018) (per 
curiam), with Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F. 3d 633 (CA8 2011). 

3 For  the  first  time  in  this  Court,  the  Government  argues  that  Bab-
cock’s  claim  fails  for  the  independent  reason  that  the  State  National