Trump Justice Department’s latest bid to sideline 17 transgender troops’ revoked retirement lawsuit fails

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to send a lawsuit over transgender troops’ revoked retirements to an Air Force records board, keeping the dispute in court as service members fight for the pensions and healthcare coverage they were promised.

Judge Elaine D. Kaplan ruled from the bench after hearing arguments in Ireland v. United States at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. The Advocate attended the hearing. The ruling does not restore the plaintiffs’ retirements or decide whether the Air Force broke its own rules by taking them away.

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

The retirement orders the Air Force took back

The case began with an offer. After President Donald Trump moved to bar transgender people from military service last year, the Air Force told some affected personnel with 15 to 18 years of service that they could apply for early retirement as an exception to policy. It issued orders to 17 Air Force and Space Force members in June 2025. In August, it rescinded them. The Advocate reported that the orders had given the service members retirement dates around which to plan their lives.

The plaintiffs argue that an Air Force regulation allows issued retirement orders to be rescinded only in limited circumstances, such as fraud or error, and that the service has identified no such basis for revoking theirs.

Related: Gen. Stanley McChrystal presides over historic farewell for five transgender troops forced into retirement

Judge questions why the case should leave court

On Tuesday, Justice Department attorney William Porter Rayel asked Kaplan to refer the case to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. He argued that the board could determine whether officials with the necessary authority had approved the original retirements and establish the basis for rescinding them. Under questioning from Kaplan, Rayel acknowledged that the decision to revoke the orders did not explain how the reversal satisfied the regulation at issue.

“Is there a document that explains that somewhere, or are you saying that I should send it to the board so that they can come up with a reason?” Kaplan asked.

Michael Haley, an attorney at GLAD Law, argued that the Air Force could produce the documents behind its decision for the court to review. GLAD Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights represent the plaintiffs. Haley told Kaplan that a referral to the board would add delay for people already approaching separation without the retirements they expected. Three plaintiffs had recently been notified that separation proceedings were beginning, he said.

Kaplan agreed that she did not need to send the case to the board now. The plaintiffs were not required to go there before suing, she said, and the central question appeared to involve interpreting an Air Force regulation — work the court could do once it had the administrative record.

“I don’t really see what purpose is served by a remand to the board,” Kaplan said. She denied the government’s motion and gave the parties a week to propose a schedule for producing the record and briefing the case.

Related: Judge rejects Trump administration bid to dismiss transgender Air Force troops’ retirement lawsuit

Another kind of military board is already deciding troops’ futures

The records board the government proposed for Ireland differs from the administrative separation boards the Pentagon is using to remove transgender service members.

The Advocate has reported that those separation proceedings can resemble trials, with officers hearing evidence and witnesses. Service members have described being excluded from hearings about their own careers. For troops close to retirement, the outcome can determine whether they leave with a pension and health coverage.

Earlier this month, Army Master Sgt. Amiah Sale told MS NOW’s Peter Alexander that she watched her separation board through a video feed from down the hall while three officers decided her future behind closed doors. Sale said she had brought 25 character references, along with her evaluations and service record. The officers decided in about 20 minutes.

“I felt really ostracized,” Sale said. Haley, who appeared with her on MS NOW, argued that denying her the chance to be in the room and make her case violated her due process rights. Sale is a plaintiff in a separate challenge to the military ban.

Related: Judge presses Trump administration over revoked retirements for transgender Air Force troops

For Logan Ireland, a promise still in dispute

Tuesday’s ruling follows an earlier effort by the administration to narrow the retirement lawsuit. The Advocate previously reported on the Justice Department’s argument that most plaintiffs could not yet sue because they were still receiving active duty pay. At a July hearing, Kaplan questioned where those troops were supposed to seek relief if they had to wait until the military separated them.

The lead plaintiff, retired Air Force Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, served more than 15 years, including a deployment to Afghanistan. When the Air Force revoked the retirement orders, Ireland told The Advocate that he had a December 1, 2025, retirement date in hand. “I felt solid,” he said, “and then betrayed.” The Advocate later reported on his retirement ceremony in Hawaii, where he spoke about passing the torch to younger service members even as the legal fight over his benefits continued.

After Tuesday’s hearing, Haley told The Advocate he was relieved the plaintiffs could proceed toward a decision on the merits. “I’m just really glad that this case is going to move forward,” he said.