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.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
