National
Immigration bill includes pro-gay language
LGBT immigration group seeks expansion of prosecutorial authority outlined in memo
New efforts emerged this week to address the inequity in U.S. immigration law preventing bi-national same-sex couples from staying together in the United States, although hurdles remain for each of the initiatives.
An LGBT immigration group called on the Obama administration to broaden a recent memo indicating when immigration officials can exercise discretion in deportation cases to include protections for gay bi-national couples. Meanwhile, comprehensive immigration reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate that includes a provision enabling gay Americans to sponsor their foreign same-sex partners for residency in the United States.
Under current immigration code, straight Americans can sponsor their spouses for residency in the United States through the green card application process if their spouses are foreign nationals. The same rights aren’t available to gay Americans. Consequently, foreign nationals who are in committed relationships with gay Americans may have to leave the country upon expiration of their temporary visas or face deportation.
On Monday, Immigration Equality called on U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement to clarify that the definition of ‘family’ and ‘spouse’ used in a June 17 memo to immigration officials include specifically bi-national same-sex couples.
The memo outlines cases in which immigration officials can exercise prosecutorial authority to include considerations such as an agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities and whether a potential deportee is pursuing higher education or has served in the U.S. military.
However, the guidance makes no explicit mention of gay couples. It states that those with “family relationships” in the United States, or individuals with a “U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse” may be considered for discretion, but doesn’t spell out whether those terms are inclusive of same-sex couples.
Rachel Tiven, Immigration Equality’s executive director, said an explicit mention of same-sex bi-national couples is necessary to ensure they can receive protections under the prosecutorial authority available to immigration officials.
“Given the absence of any LGBT family recognition at the federal level, the decision not to explicitly include our spouses and partners in the ICE memo is striking,” Tiven said. “If the administration does support efforts to keep LGBT families together, it should tell its field offices as much. If it does not, it must explain why. In the interim, families are being torn apart and American citizens are being separated from their spouses. There is simply no government interest served in such draconian enforcement of our immigration laws.”
The request to expand the memo comes on the heels of letters that U.S. senators and members of Congress sent to the Obama administration asking for a moratorium on the deportations of foreign nationals who are legally recognized same-sex marriage with U.S. citizens and would be eligible for marriage-based green cards if not for the Defense of Marriage Act.
Even though President Obama announced in February that DOMA is unconstitutional, the administration has said in the response to these requests it would continue to enforce DOMA.
Gillian Christensen, an Immigration & Customs Enforcement spokesperson, similarly said her agency would continue to enforce DOMA in response to the most recent request from Immigration Equality.
“Pursuant to the attorney general’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the executive branch, including [the Department of Homeland & Security], will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it or there a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional,” Christensen said.
Christopher Nugent, who’s gay and co-chair of the American Bar Association’s rights of immigrants committee, was skeptical that Immigration & Customs Enforcement would make the change in accordance with Immigration Equality’s request.
“I am optimistic by nature but doubtful of such change with … with all the political battles going on here and with the economic woes,” Nugent said.
A new path has also been opened to address the hardships faced by bi-national same-sex couples through legislative means. On Wednesday, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced comprehensive immigration reform legislation that includes a family reunification provision for gay couples.
Menendez’ legislation, which seeks to enhance border security and offers a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, contains language similar to standalone legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their same-sex partners for residency in the United States.
Late last year, Menendez introduced similar comprehensive legislation that also included a UAFA-like provision. The legislation also contains language similar to the DREAM Act, which would offer young, undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship if they obtain a college education or enlist in the U.S. military.
In a statement, Menendez said the legislation is a signal that lawmakers are “serious about fixing our broken immigration system.”
“We stand for a complete solution — a real solution — to end undocumented immigration and restore the rule of law,” Menendez said. “This is common-sense legislation that addresses the realities of the situation, stops the flow across our borders, and contributes to our economic recovery.”
Tiven said Immigration Equality stands behind Menendez and is “ready, willing and able to rally the LGBT community, and our families and allies” in the effort to pass his comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year.
“Today’s bill is supported by the top Democratic lawmakers in the Senate, including the chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee,” Tiven said. “We stand with them, and our allies in the LGBT and immigrant communities, in supporting reform that honors all families and offers an inclusive vision of America.”
Original co-sponsors for the legislation include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The legislation has no Republican co-sponsors.
The chances of passing comprehensive immigration reform legislation would be challenging with Republicans in control of the House in the 112th Congress. However, the legislation may see movement — or at least a committee hearing — in the Democratic Senate.
During a news conference on Wednesday, Leahy, whose committee has jurisdiction over the bill, pledged to hold hearings on the legislation, but said the focus now is to introduce legislation to encourage discussion among other senators.
“We’ll see it when we get up enough support, it looks like the best time, we’ll start having these hearings and we will report,” Leahy said.
The White House expressed support for comprehensive immigration reform, but hasn’t articulated support for a UAFA-like provision as a component of the bill.
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said via e-mail President Obama backs the passage of comprehensive immigration reform in response to an inquiry on the bill, but made no mention of the provision for same-sex couples in his statement.
“The president has spoken clearly about the need to fix the broken immigration system so that it meets America’s economic and security needs for the 21st century,” Inouye said. “We welcome Sen. Menendez’s leadership on this economic imperative, as well as any constructive effort to reach the bipartisan consensus necessary to pass a legislative solution in Congress at the earliest possible opportunity.”
Inouye didn’t respond to a subsequent request to comment on whether the president supports the UAFA-like provision in the legislation. The White House has spoken out against the separation of bi-national same-sex couples, but hasn’t explicitly endorsed any legislation to achieve that end.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
My chance encounter with a pope and why goodness still matters
Underdog glorious: a personal remembrance of Jill Sobule
Dr. Fauci receives Harvey Milk Award, reflects on legacy of love and public health
I’m a lesbian and LGBTQ books would have changed my life
Comings & Goings
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved
Trump admin cancels more than $800 million in LGBTQ health grants
-
The Vatican3 days agoAmerican cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days agoYour guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days agoSupreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days agoWorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved