Babcock v. Kijakazi
2022 United States Supreme Court case
Babcock v. Kijakazi, 595 U.S. 77 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on "service as a member of a uniformed service" under 42 U.S.C. § 415(1)(7)(A)(III).
Description
Babcock worked as a dual-status technician for the National Guard from 1975 to 2009, and he was hired on as a civilian before some staffing organization changes in 1984. As part of his job, he was required to wear a uniform every day.
In essence, the government's position was that Babcock was hired as a civilian and was never a member of the National Guard. Accordingly, the government reduced his Social Security benefits because an exception that shielded service members from the reduction did not cover Babcock. The Supreme Court agreed with the government's position, saying the requirement that the employee wear a uniform is not what makes one a member of a uniformed service.
See also
Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
References
External links
Text of Babcock v. Kijakazi, No.
The public source identifies “Babcock v. Kijakazi” as 2022 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Babcock, Kijakazi and United.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Babcock v. Kijakazi”, the useful work is to connect “2022 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q124807077. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2022, 1975, 2009 and 1984.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Babcock v. Kijakazi”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Babcock v. Kijakazi primary sources, Babcock v. Kijakazi archive and Babcock research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Babcock v. Kijakazi”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Babcock v. Kijakazi” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.