Connect with us

National

New immigration reform bill excludes LGBT families

Published

on

Rep. Jerrold Nadler said he considers a new, alternative immigration reform bill that lacks provisions for LGBT families ‘a starting point in the long drive toward comprehensive immigration reform.’ (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)

An alternative immigration reform bill introduced last week in Congress lacks sought-after language for LGBT families, but advocates of the provision remain optimistic the bill’s sponsor will support inclusion in future legislation.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) introduced the bill — titled the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security & Prosperity Act — in the U.S. House along with more than 90 other Democrats.

Because the legislation would, among other things, offer a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the measure is seen as a more liberal alternative bill that would set the tone for comprehensive immigration reform legislation next year.

But Gutierrez’s bill lacks a provision that would allow LGBT Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Advocates had been pressuring Gutierrez to include such language, which is seen as necessary to stop the U.S. government from keeping apart more than 36,000 LGBT bi-national couples.

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization is disappointed the lawmaker didn’t include this measure in his bill. Still, Ralls noted that he remains optimistic Gutierrez will support the provision in the path toward immigration reform.

“We are extremely disappointed, and we pushed very hard to have our families included, but I do take Congressman Gutierrez at his word that when the issue begins to move early next year that he’s going to stand with us,” he said.

In response to a query on why the bill excludes this language, Gutierrez said in a statement that he’s “committed to fighting for a bill that fixes our broken immigration system for as many people, and as many families as possible.”

“The process I am committed to being a part of in Congress will, I hope, address the unacceptable situation that lesbian and gay bi-national couples live under every day,” he said.

Advocates are hoping upcoming comprehensive immigration reform legislation will include a provision for LGBT bi-national couples. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) is expected to introduce the House legislation next year while Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is expected to introduce the Senate legislation.

Additionally, standalone legislation already introduced in the House and the Senate — known as the Uniting American Families Act — addresses the issue. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) sponsors the legislation in the House and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) sponsors the legislation in the Senate.

An original co-sponsor for UAFA in the House, Gutierrez said his “commitment to ending discrimination against [LGBT] immigrants and their families has not diminished in any way.”

“Everyone’s goal should be a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a commitment to all families and honors our history as a nation of immigrants,” he said. “That is my goal, and it is inclusive of the [LGBT] community, too.”

Ralls noted many of the co-sponsors for Gutierrez’s bill are the same as the sponsors for UAFA and that he’s optimistic these lawmakers “will stand with us when the crafting of the working bill happens.”

“Congressman Gutierrez has been very clear throughout this process that, at the end of the day, when Congress takes up a multi-issue immigration reform bill, that he’s going to support our inclusion,” Ralls said.

In a statement, Nadler called Gutierrez’s legislation “a starting point in the long drive toward comprehensive immigration reform” and cited other opportunities to include UAFA in this legislative effort.

“I will continue to work with Reps. Gutierrez and Lofgren, as well as Senator Schumer, during this dynamic process,” Nadler said. “Comprehensive immigration reform will not truly be comprehensive if it excludes LGBT immigration rights, and I will not stop until those rights are a reality.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular