Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Babcock v. Kijakazi

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Babcock v. Kijakazi
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: October 13, 2021
Decided: January 13, 2022
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
8-1
Majority
Amy Coney Barrett • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch
This article is about the court case previously known as Babcock v. Saul; it became Babcock v. Kijakazi when Kilolo Kijakazi became the acting Commissioner of Social Security.

Babcock v. Kijakazi is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 13, 2021, during the court's October 2021-2022 term.

On January 13, 2022, the court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in an 8-1 ruling, holding that Babcock's civil-service pension payments were not based on his service as a member of a uniformed service. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: David Babcock was a dual-status technician with the National Guard who participated in the Civil Service Retirement System ("CSRS") and paid Social Security taxes on certain qualifying income.[2] Upon his retirement, Babcock applied for Social Security retirement benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) granted Babcock's application but reduced his benefits since he also received CSRS pension payments. Babcock asked the SSA to reconsider, citing the Social Security Act uniformed services exception and arguing that his pension plan was covered. The SSA did not change its determination and on appeal, an administrative law judge and the SSA Appeals Council affirmed the determination. Babcock sought judicial review with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Elsewhere and in separate cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued opposite rulings on whether dual-status technicians are exempt, creating a circuit split. In Babcock's case, the district court ruled that his uniformed service did not qualify under the exception. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed the decision. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned the requirements and interpretation of uniformed service under the Social Security Act's uniformed services exception relating to civil service pension payment plans.
  • The questions presented: "Is a civil-service pension payment based on dual-status military technician service to the National Guard a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service?"[3][4]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[2]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    In 1970, David Babcock joined the Michigan National Guard as an enlisted soldier. Babcock received his pilot license and, in 1975, became employed as a dual-status technician with the National Guard.[2] Babcock also served on active duty in Iraq for a period from 2004 to 2005.[2] Babcock received civil pay and participated in the Civil Service Retirement System ("CSRS") and paid Social Security taxes on the wages from his active duty service and for his inactive duty training since 1988. He did not pay Social Security taxes on his wages for inactive duty training before 1988 or on his civil pay. Babcock retired as a dual-status technician on January 31, 2009. Following his retirement, he received monthly payments from his CSRS pension plan and separate military retirement pay. Babcock flew medical evacuation helicopters following his retirement and that income was subject to Social Security taxes. Babcock retired from the military in 2014.[2]

    On September 30, 2014, Babcock applied for Social Security retirement benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) granted Babcock's application but reduced his benefits under the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) of the Social Security Act due to his CSRS pension payments. Babcock asked the SSA to reconsider its decision, citing an exception to the WEP for payments "based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service," since his CSRS pension was related to his work as a dual-status technician, which was a uniformed service position.[2][5]

    At the time, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit was the only federal court of appeal to have addressed whether the exception applied to a dual-status technician's CSRS pension, holding that a dual-status technician did qualify under the uniformed services exception in Petersen v. Astrue. In response, the SSA issued a ruling outlining how it would apply the exception for claimants residing within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction. Because Babcock did not live in that area, the SSA declined to change its initial decision in his benefits application. An administrative law judge upheld the SSA's determination, and the SSA Appeals Council affirmed the judge's ruling.[2]

    In 2018, Babcock sought judicial review of the SSA determination and filed a claim with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. He asserted that his rights to due process and equal protection were violated because the uniformed services exception applied differently to benefits claimants who resided in the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction. While the case was pending, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit concluded that the uniformed services exception did not apply to dual-status technicians in the case Martin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, triggering a circuit split. Based on a review of the Petersen and Martin rulings by the 8th Circuit and 11th Circuit, respectively, the Western District of Michigan held that the uniformed services exception was not applicable in Babcock's case, in line with the Martin decision. The court also rejected Babcock's constitutional claims. Babcock appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.[2]

    On appeal, the 6th Circuit held that the uniformed services exception did not apply to Babcock's CSRS pension and affirmed the Western District of Michigan's ruling.[2]

    Uniformed services exception

    The following exception, at issue in this case, reads as follows:[5]

    “ (A) In the case of an individual whose primary insurance amount would be computed under paragraph (1) of this subsection, who-

    (i) attains age 62 after 1985 (except where he or she became entitled to a disability insurance benefit before 1986 and remained so entitled in any of the 12 months immediately preceding his or her attainment of age 62), or
    (ii) would attain age 62 after 1985 and becomes eligible for a disability insurance benefit after 1985, and who first becomes eligible after 1985 for a monthly periodic payment (including a payment determined under subparagraph (C), but excluding (I) a payment under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 or 1937 [ 45 U.S.C. 231 et seq., 228a et seq.], (II) a payment by a social security system of a foreign country based on an agreement concluded between the United States and such foreign country pursuant to section 433 of this title, and (III) a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service (as defined in section 410(m) of this title)) which is based in whole or in part upon his or her earnings for service which did not constitute "employment" as defined in section 410 of this title for purposes of this subchapter (hereafter in this paragraph and in subsection (d)(3) referred to as "noncovered service"), the primary insurance amount of that individual during his or her concurrent entitlement to such monthly periodic payment and to old-age or disability insurance benefits shall be computed or recomputed under subparagraph (B).[6]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3][4]

    Questions presented:
    “ Is a civil-service pension payment based on dual-status military technician service to the National Guard a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service?[6] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    On January 13, 2022, the court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in an 8-1 ruling, holding that Babcock's civil-service pension payments were not based on his service as a member of a uniformed service. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ The Social Security Act generally reduces the benefits of retirees who receive payments from separate pensions based on employment not subject to Social Security taxes. The reduction is not triggered, though, by payments “based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service.” We must decide whether this exception applies to civil-service pension payments based on employment as a “dual-status military technician”—a federal civilian employee who provides technical or administrative assistance to the National Guard. We hold that it does not. ...


    ... Babcock’s civil-service pension payments fall outside the Social Security Act’s uniformed-services exception because they are based on service in his civilian capacity. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ As the only dissenter on this narrow question of statutory interpretation, I confess trepidation. Still, I cannot help but find compelling the arguments advanced by the petitioner before us and by the Eighth Circuit in Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F. 3d 633, 637–638 (2011).


    Dual-status military technicians hold “a unique position in federal employment.” Ante, at 2. Not only do they sometimes serve on active duty, as the petitioner did. Babcock v. Commissioner of Social Security, 959 F. 3d 210, 212 (CA6 2020). By statute, they spend the rest of their time working for the Guard—on matters ranging from training others to administration to equipment maintenance. 10 U.S.C. § 10216(a)(1)(C); 32 U. S. C. § 709(a). At all times, they must “maintain membership” in the National Guard and wear a Guard uniform while on the job. 10 U.S.C. § 10216(a)(1)(B); 32 U.S.C. § 709(b). The authority to discharge or discipline these individuals, too, rests with the Adjutant General. §§ 709(d), (f). Given these features of their employment, I would hold that dual-status technicians “serv[e] as” members of the National Guard in all the work they perform for this country day in and day out. 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7)(A)(III).

    I appreciate the analogy to police officers moonlighting as 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 department 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 suspect most reasonable officers in that situation would consider 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, separate “bookkeeping” statutes. Ante, at 7.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[10] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[11]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Supreme Court, Babcock v. Kijakazi, decided January 13, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, Babcock v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., decided May 11, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 20-480: Questions Presented," accessed March 1, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Babcock v. Commissioner of Social Security: Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed March 1, 2021
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 United States Code, "Section 415 - Computation of primary insurance amount," accessed March 1, 2021
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed October 13, 2021
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," accessed October 13, 2021
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    10. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    11. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Babcock_v._Kijakazi&oldid=9117228"