New military lawsuits moving through federal courts in 2025 and 2026 cover the Trump administration’s transgender service ban, Camp Lejeune water contamination, PFAS firefighting foam, contractor liability in war zones, 3M Combat Arms earplugs, burn pit disability designations, retroactive combat-related pay, and military sexual assault. Several have produced recent rulings at the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts, and others are heading toward bellwether trials or global settlements. Here is where the biggest cases stand.
Transgender Service Ban: Talbott v. United States
President Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 banning transgender troops, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth followed with a policy presumptively disqualifying anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction in March 2025, finding the order likely unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court let the Pentagon keep enforcing the ban while the case continued.1NPR. Pentagon Transgender Troops
On June 1, 2026, the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 in Talbott v. United States that the ban is illegal as applied to currently serving troops. Judge Robert L. Wilkins wrote that the policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group” and that the government had not shown transgender troops harm military operations.2The New York Times. Transgender Troops Appeals Court Ruling The ruling protects the 28 named plaintiffs, led by Second Lieutenant Nicholas Talbott of the Army Reserve, but does not stop the administration from barring new recruits.3U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Talbott v. United States, No. 25-5087
Judge Justin Walker dissented, arguing the judiciary lacks authority to second-guess military exclusion policies. The court placed the decision on hold so the administration can seek further review, and Hegseth said publicly, “See you at SCOTUS.”1NPR. Pentagon Transgender Troops Plaintiffs have asked the court to extend protection to all transgender troops, and a separate challenge is pending in Washington state.
Camp Lejeune Water Contamination
The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022, passed as part of the PACT Act, lets anyone exposed to contaminated drinking water at the North Carolina Marine base between 1953 and 1987 seek compensation from the federal government. The Navy received 408,860 administrative claims before the filing window closed in August 2024, and 3,718 plaintiffs have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.4Roll Call. Victims of Camp Lejeune’s Tainted Water Inch Closer to Amends
Elective Option Settlements
The Department of Justice launched the “Elective Option” in September 2023 to resolve qualifying claims without litigation. Payouts turn on which of nine illnesses the claimant has and how long they were exposed. Tier 1 diseases (kidney, liver, and bladder cancers, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and leukemia) pay $150,000 to $450,000. Tier 2 conditions (Parkinson’s disease, multiple myeloma, kidney disease) pay $100,000 to $400,000. An additional $100,000 is available where the illness contributed to death, pushing the maximum to $550,000.5U.S. Navy. Public Guidance Elective Option CLJA
As of March 2026, the DOJ had approved 2,531 settlement offers totaling roughly $708 million, with more than $421 million paid out since January 2025.6U.S. Department of Justice. Department of Justice Approves Historic Number of Settlements for Camp Lejeune Victims and Families
Bellwether Trials and a Pending Fix
About two dozen cases are heading for bellwether trials that could start later in 2026, with four federal judges presiding. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have called the government’s offers inadequate, and the DOJ has repeatedly contested the link between exposure and illness.4Roll Call. Victims of Camp Lejeune’s Tainted Water Inch Closer to Amends7Roll Call. Murphy Tillis Gain Support for Bill on Camp Lejeune Litigation8Congress.gov. S.907 Ensuring Justice for Camp Lejeune Victims Act
PFAS Firefighting Foam Litigation
The Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2873, sits before Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina. It is one of the largest mass torts in the country, targeting makers of PFAS-containing firefighting foam used for decades on military bases and at airports. As of May 2026, about 15,230 cases remained pending out of nearly 19,800 filed.9MDL Update. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams MDL 2873
Water-supplier settlements already top $12 billion, led by 3M’s $10.3 billion deal reached in 2023 and a $1.185 billion fund from DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva. Personal injury settlements for individual service members and firefighters have not been reached. A bellwether trial originally set for October 2025 was postponed, and attorneys expect a potential global resolution in 2026 or 2027.9MDL Update. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams MDL 2873
The Department of Defense has identified 581 military sites requiring PFAS cleanup. Many remediation projects have slipped: in Washington state, work originally scheduled for 2026 has been pushed to 2032 and 2034.10Robert King Law Firm. Military Base Water Contamination Lawsuit
Supreme Court Narrows Contractor Immunity in Hencely v. Fluor
On April 22, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Hencely v. Fluor Corp. that military contractors do not have blanket immunity from state negligence suits simply because the work happened in a war zone. Army Specialist Winston Hencely was injured in a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield and alleged that Fluor failed to follow military protocols for tracking its local employees, enabling the attack.11SCOTUSblog. Justices Reject Certain Protections for Contractors in War Zones
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson, rejected the Fourth Circuit’s “battlefield preemption” doctrine. State tort claims are preempted only when a contractor is sued for carrying out what the federal government specifically authorized or directed; a contractor acting contrary to military instructions remains subject to state law.12Supreme Court of the United States. Hencely v. Fluor Corp., No. 24-924 Justice Alito dissented with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh. The case returns to the lower courts.13SCOTUSblog. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation
3M Combat Arms Earplug Payouts
The litigation over 3M’s Combat Arms earplugs, issued to service members from 1999 to 2015, is winding down. 3M agreed in August 2023 to a $6 billion settlement (($5 billion in cash and $1 billion in 3M stock)) to resolve nearly 260,000 claims out of the 391,221 lawsuits originally filed in the Northern District of Florida. More than 99% of claimants opted in.14Drugwatch. 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Lawsuits
By late January 2026, more than $3.1 billion had been distributed, with payments scheduled to continue through 2029.15Miller & Zois. 3M Combat Arms Earplug Lawsuit The deal came together after a federal judge denied 3M’s effort to resolve claims through a subsidiary bankruptcy in June 2023.14Drugwatch. 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Lawsuits In March 2026, the presiding judge invalidated hundreds of claims submitted from Uganda after a Special Master found “reckless indifference” in document verification by the submitting law firm.
Burn Pit Disability Class Action: Smoke v. Driscoll
On March 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a settlement in Smoke et al. v. Driscoll, a class action challenging the Army’s refusal to treat burn pit disabilities as “combat-related.” The distinction makes disability retirement pay tax-free and can preserve certain employment benefits for Reserve Component members.16NVLSP. NVLSP and Sidley Settle Class Action Lawsuit With U.S. Army Designating Burn Pits as Instrumentalities of War
Under the settlement, the Army agreed to define open-air burn pits in combat zones as “instrumentalities of war” and to review records of veterans medically retired on or after August 10, 2022, who were denied combat-related designations for PACT Act presumptive conditions. The Army aims to finish those reviews within six months of the settlement date.17Citizen Soldier Law. CRSC for Burn Pits Related Health Issues
Soto v. United States: Retroactive Combat-Related Pay
On June 12, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Soto v. United States that more than 9,000 veterans had been wrongfully denied full retroactive Combat-Related Special Compensation. The Department of Defense had capped back payments at six years, but Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that the CRSC statute displaces that limit and that eligible veterans can receive retroactive pay dating back to January 1, 2008.18NVLSP. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for 9,000 Combat-Disabled Veterans19Supreme Court of the United States. Soto v. United States, No. 24-320 The DOD issued new guidance on May 14, 2026, retracting the six-year rule. A related class action for veterans with larger claims remains pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.20NVLSP. NVLSP Class Actions
Military Sexual Assault and the Feres Doctrine
Service members assaulted by fellow troops have long been blocked from suing the military under the Feres doctrine, the 1950 Supreme Court rule that bars suits for injuries “incident to service.” Congress has not overturned Feres for sexual assault claims, though the SFC Richard Stayskal Medical Accountability Act created a narrow administrative process for medical malpractice in 2019.21Protect Our Defenders. Feres Doctrine and Lawsuits Against the US Military Explained
Spletstoser v. Hyten
Retired Army Colonel Kathryn Spletstoser sued General John Hyten, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, alleging he sexually assaulted her in a hotel room. The Ninth Circuit ruled in 2022 that Feres did not apply because the assault “did not involve a close military judgment call” and could not be incident to military service.21Protect Our Defenders. Feres Doctrine and Lawsuits Against the US Military Explained22Politico. Top General Sexual Assault Settlement23The New York Times. Air Force General Sexual Assault Lawsuit Settlement
Madigan Army Doctor Claims
Forty-two former service members have filed Federal Tort Claims Act administrative complaints totaling $210 million against the Army over sexual abuse by Dr. Michael Stockin at Madigan Army Medical Center. Stockin pleaded guilty in military court on January 9, 2025, to 36 counts of abusive sexual contact and 5 counts of indecent viewing involving 41 patients.24Stars and Stripes. Army Doctor Sex Abuse Lewis-McChord Claims The claims are in administrative review. If the Army denies them, the claimants can sue in federal court, testing whether Feres bars claims arising from a military doctor’s criminal conduct.25The Seattle Times. Dozens of Soldiers File $210M in Claims Over JBLM Doctor’s Sex Abuse
Other Active Cases to Watch
Withrow v. United States
LeAnne Withrow, a civilian military and family readiness specialist for the Illinois National Guard and a former staff sergeant, filed a class action in November 2025 in the District of D.C. She alleges that a January 2025 executive order requiring federal employees to use restrooms based on “biological sex” violates Title VII and the Administrative Procedure Act. As of May 2026, the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss.26ACLU. Withrow v. United States et al
Kennedy v. McCarthy
In Kennedy v. McCarthy, a nationwide class action in the District of Connecticut, roughly 50,000 Iraq and Afghanistan Army veterans who received less-than-Honorable discharges despite having PTSD, traumatic brain injury, or related conditions won a settlement approved in April 2021. The Army Discharge Review Board must automatically reconsider thousands of previously denied upgrade applications and apply liberalized standards to mental health-related discharge claims.27Yale Law School. Kennedy v. McCarthy