Judge Elaine D. Kaplan denied the Justice Department's motion to dismiss claims by 17 transgender Air Force members whose approved early retirement orders were later rescinded. Kaplan ruled the government's standing and jurisdiction arguments improperly mix jurisdiction with the merits, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed. Eleven plaintiffs may file a supplemental complaint now that their retirement dates have passed; the deadline is August 4. Advocates say each plaintiff could lose as much as $1–2 million if benefits are not restored.
Judge Lets 17 Transgender Air Force Members Continue Lawsuit Over Revoked Early Retirements
Air Force Master Sergeant Logan Ireland
Washington, D.C. — A federal judge has refused the Trump administration's bid to dismiss most claims in a lawsuit brought by 17 transgender Air Force members who say the military revoked approved early retirement orders issued to them and replaced those retirements with far smaller separation payouts.
Court Ruling
In a 10-page opinion, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Elaine D. Kaplan denied the Justice Department's motion to dismiss and allowed all 17 plaintiffs to pursue claims that the government unlawfully stripped them of promised retirement pay and benefits. Kaplan, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote that the government's arguments improperly conflated questions of jurisdiction with the merits of the plaintiffs' case.
"The government's arguments conflate the merits of Plaintiffs' claims with the establishment of this Court's jurisdiction," Kaplan wrote.
Background
Plaintiffs allege that after President Trump's 2025 executive order limiting transgender military service, the Air Force invited service members with roughly 15 to 18 years of service to apply for early retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority. According to the complaint, those applications were approved and official retirement orders were issued with dates in the fall of 2025. Weeks later, following new Pentagon leadership and changes to policy implementation, the Air Force rescinded those retirement orders and offered voluntary separation pay instead — an amount plaintiffs say is far less than full military retirement benefits.
Procedural Issue And Next Steps
Judge Kaplan identified a narrow procedural issue affecting 11 plaintiffs whose scheduled retirement dates had not yet arrived when the lawsuit was filed in November 2025. Rather than dismiss those claims, she granted leave to file a supplemental complaint reflecting that those retirement dates have since passed. The court set an August 4 deadline for the supplemental filing.
Human Impact
At oral argument, two plaintiffs — whose names are being withheld because they remain in uniform — described immediate practical and emotional harm. One, a service member with more than 15 years in uniform who supports a family, said the uncertainty made it "impossible to make any kind of contingency plan for moving forward" and called the reversal "a pretty devastating betrayal." Another described retirement as a culmination of military identity and service, saying it was more than a pension: it included ceremony, recognition and an orderly transition.
Legal Stakes
GLAD Law Staff Attorney Michael Haley, representing some plaintiffs, warned that each service member could face a potential loss of up to $1–2 million in lifetime retirement benefits if the revocations stand. He argued the government should not be allowed to "sidestep its obligation to these dedicated servicemembers." The judge's ruling lets those factual and legal disputes proceed to the merits rather than being dismissed at the threshold.
The case remains active in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims as plaintiffs prepare supplemental filings and continue litigating whether already-issued retirement orders can be lawfully rescinded after policy changes tied to the 2025 transgender service ban.
Help us improve.
