DOJ tells court transgender troops must be fired before suing over revoked retirements

The Trump administration says Air Force members challenging revoked retirements can’t sue yet. The Justice Department on Monday asked a federal court to dismiss most of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought by transgender service members challenging the Air Force’s decision to revoke their approved retirements.

Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.

In a filing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, government attorneys argued that 16 of the 17 plaintiffs in Logan Ireland et al. v. United States should be dismissed because they remain on active duty and therefore are not yet entitled to the retirement pay they seek.

The case centers on a whiplash-inducing policy shift in 2025. After the Trump administration moved to bar transgender people from military service, affected troops were pushed to choose between voluntary separation and removal. For those with 15 to 18 years in uniform, early retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority offered a narrow path to leave with pensions and benefits intact.

Related: Transgender Air Force members sue Trump administration over revoked retirements

Related: Air Force rescinds early retirement approvals for transgender service members kicked out by Trump

By June, the Air Force had approved those requests. Service members received official retirement orders and dates, and many began preparing to transition to civilian life after more than a decade of service.

Weeks later, the military reversed course.

In August, Air Force leadership rescinded the retirement orders, concluding that many of the early-retirement approvals should not have been granted. The decision erased scheduled retirement dates and stripped service members of access to pensions, forcing them to remain in uniform or face separation without long-term benefits.

Lead plaintiff Master Sgt. Logan Ireland previously told The Advocate that the reversal disrupted years of planning and left service members uncertain about their financial futures after they had relied on approved retirement orders.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs argue the Air Force violated its own regulations and federal law by canceling retirements after they were formally approved. They are seeking the reinstatement of their retirement orders, back pay, and damages for lost benefits.

Many of the plaintiffs remain on active duty but have been placed on administrative absence, a form of paid leave, while separation proceedings move forward.

The Justice Department argues that status is decisive. Because the plaintiffs are still receiving active duty pay, they have not suffered “presently due monetary damages,” the filing states, and are instead seeking relief tied to future retirement benefits, which fall outside the court’s jurisdiction, according to the government.

If the court agrees, the case could be significantly narrowed before any ruling on whether the Air Force acted unlawfully in rescinding the retirement orders and whether the government can reverse benefits already granted after years of service.