Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-480_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 8

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

It was not.  In context, “as” is most naturally read to mean 
“[i]n the role, capacity, or function of.”  American Heritage
Dictionary 106 (3d ed. 1992); see also 1 Oxford English Dic-
tionary 674 (2d ed. 1989) (“[i]n the character, capacity, or 
rôle of ”).  And the role, capacity, or function in which a tech-
nician serves is that of a civilian, not a member of the Na-
tional  Guard.  The  statute  defining  the  technician  job
makes that point broadly and repeatedly: “For purposes of 
this  section  and  any  other  provision  of  law,”  a  technician
“is” a “civilian employee,” “assigned to a civilian position” 
and  “authorized  and  accounted  for  as”  a  “civilian.”  10 
U. S. C. §§10216(a)(1), (a)(1)(C), (a)(2).

This statute’s plain meaning “becomes even more appar-
ent when viewed in” the broader statutory context.  FCC v. 
AT&T Inc., 562 U. S. 397, 407 (2011).  While working in a
civilian capacity, technicians are not subject to the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.  See 10 U. S. C. §§802(a)(3)(A)(ii), 
12403,  12405.  They  possess  characteristically  civilian 
rights  to  seek  redress  for  employment  discrimination  and 
to earn workers’ compensation, disability benefits, and com-
pensatory  time  off  for  overtime  work.    See  32  U. S. C. 
§709(f )(5); 42 U. S. C. §2000e–16; 5 U. S. C. §§8101 et seq., 
8337(h), 8451; 32 U. S. C. §709(h).  And, as particularly sig-
nificant  in  the  context  of  retirement  benefits,  technicians 
hired before 1984 are members of the “civil service” entitled 
to pensions under Title 5 of the U. S. Code, which governs
the pay and benefits of civil servants.  See 5 U. S. C. §2101. 
These  provisions  demonstrate  that  Congress  consistently 
distinguished technician employment from National Guard 

—————— 
Guard  in  which  he  served,  as  distinct  from  the  National  Guard  of  the 
United States, is not a “uniformed service” under the statute.  We need 
not reach this question to decide the case and express no view of the Gov-
ernment’s alternative argument, which was neither pressed nor passed 
upon  below.  See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta,  534  U. S.  103, 
110 (2001) (per curiam) (“ ‘[T]his is a court of final review and not first 
view’ ”).