A federal judge has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to remove 16 transgender service members from a lawsuit challenging the Air Force’s decision to revoke their previously approved early retirements.
Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the United States Court of Federal Claims denied the Justice Department’s partial motion to dismiss on Wednesday, 22 July, allowing all 17 plaintiffs to continue pursuing their claims.
The case, Ireland v. United States, centres on current and former members of the US Air Force and Space Force who say the government unlawfully stripped them of retirement pay and benefits after issuing official orders allowing them to retire early.
The ruling does not decide whether the Air Force acted unlawfully. Instead, it confirms that the court has jurisdiction to hear the service members’ claims.
Air Force Approved Retirements Before Reversing Course
The lawsuit developed from President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order targeting transgender military service.
Air Force guidance issued in May 2025 allowed transgender personnel with between 15 and 18 years of service to apply for retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority as an exception to the usual policy.
All 17 plaintiffs applied and were approved in June 2025. The Air Force issued formal retirement orders giving them effective retirement dates between September and December of that year.
However, after a change in leadership within the Department of the Air Force, those decisions were reversed.
In August 2025, the official performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force disapproved the early-retirement exceptions. The plaintiffs then received orders rescinding their retirements and were offered voluntary separation pay instead.
That one-off payment would be substantially less valuable than the continuing retirement pay and benefits they expected to receive.
Government Sought to Remove 16 Plaintiffs
The Justice Department argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over 16 of the 17 service members.
When the lawsuit was filed in November 2025, those plaintiffs were still serving on active duty and receiving active-duty pay. The government therefore contended that they could not claim retirement money was already owed to them.
Under that argument, most of the plaintiffs would have needed to wait until they were formally separated from military service before bringing a claim for lost retirement pay.
Kaplan rejected that reasoning, finding that the government had confused the question of whether the court could hear the case with the separate question of whether the plaintiffs would ultimately succeed.
“The government’s arguments conflate the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims with the establishment of this Court’s jurisdiction,” she wrote.
The judge found that the service members had identified federal laws capable of requiring the government to pay compensation and had made credible allegations that they belonged to the group entitled to recover under those laws.
Whether their continued active-duty service affects the amount of compensation they may receive can be addressed later when the merits of the case are considered, she ruled.
Lawsuit Challenges Revocation of Official Orders
The plaintiffs argue that the Air Force was not permitted to revoke the retirement orders after approving and issuing them.
Air Force instructions cited in the lawsuit state that retirement orders may be withdrawn only in limited circumstances, including fraud, a significant error, a mistake of law or substantial new evidence making an order invalid.
The service members allege that none of those conditions applied when their retirements were rescinded.
They are seeking reinstatement of the orders, corrections to their military records, restoration of associated benefits and compensation for retirement pay they say they have lost.
Kaplan concluded that the court could consider those claims under the Tucker Act, which gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over certain demands for money against the US Government.
Plaintiffs Describe “Devastating Betrayal”
Two plaintiffs previously told The Advocate that the reversal had already disrupted their lives. Their names were withheld because they remained in military service.
One service member, who had served for more than 15 years and was supporting a family, said the continuing uncertainty had made it “impossible to make any kind of contingency plan for moving forward”.
“Sleeping is impossible, but I still have to hold it together because I have to provide for my family, and I have to make sure I’m doing right by my subordinates,” they said.
They described the revocation of their retirement as “a pretty devastating betrayal”.
Another plaintiff said retirement represented more than a pension. It would have included a ceremony, formal recognition and a dignified conclusion to a military career built over many years.
“To have us go out with a whimper as opposed to a bang is not right,” the service member said. “More so than just being trans folks, we are military. We are serving.”
Supplemental Complaint Due in August
Kaplan identified a technical jurisdictional issue affecting 11 plaintiffs whose December 2025 retirement dates had not yet arrived when the lawsuit was originally filed on 10 November.
Rather than dismissing their claims, she gave the plaintiffs permission to submit a supplemental complaint confirming that all of the scheduled retirement dates have now passed and that they have not received retirement pay.
That filing is due on 4 August. Both sides must then submit a joint proposal for the next stage of proceedings by 11 August.
The case will now continue, with the court still to determine whether the Air Force unlawfully revoked the retirement orders and what relief, if any, the service members should receive.
