Connect with us

National

S.F. couple ‘elated’ over deferred deportation

USCIS allows Wells, Makk to stay together in country

Published

on

Anthony Makk and Bradford Wells (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Bradford Wells breathed a sigh of relief this week following the news that his Australian-native spouse, Anthony Makk, won’t be forced to leave the United States anytime soon.

“I’m absolutely elated,” Wells said. “The pressing issue of my family being destroyed has been dealt with for the time being.”

On Wednesday, Wells, 56, received a letter from U.S. Customs & Immigration Services that potential deportation action on Makk, 49, won’t happen for at least two years.

Wells said he received the news while watching the Republican presidential candidates on television and feeling discouraged by their anti-gay rhetoric when he received an unexpected phone call.

“It was Nancy Pelosi calling,” Wells said. “She called to tell me that the problem had been solved and Anthony had been given deferred action and that my family would be together. The deferred action was good for two years. That gave me such a feeling of joy and relief.”

Wells and Makk met with House Minority Leader Pelosi (D-Calif.) to discuss their situation in D.C. during an October meeting, according to The Advocate.

Makk said he was “over the moon happy” upon hearing about the deferred action because it means his efforts to stay in the United States haven’t been in vain.

“To be able to remain here legally has been important to us, and it always has been,” Makk said. “The fact that they don’t grant this [deferred action] to many people at all makes this even more special.”

Under current immigration law, straight Americans can sponsor their foreign spouses for residency in the United States through a marriage-based green card application, but the same option isn’t available to gay bi-national couples because the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Consequently, foreign nationals in same-sex marriages could be deported if they’re undocumented or upon the expiration of their green cards. Makk was in the United States from 2000 to 2010 under a business visa, but after his company shut down, he lost his visa status and faced separation from the country.

For Wells, the prospect of being separated from his spouse was distressing because he has AIDS and depends on his spouse for care.

“He helps me get through when things just seem too difficult for me to deal with,” Wells said. “Sometimes I get so sick, I can’t deal with them … I’ve been in a lot of pain lately, so walking has been very difficult. He helps me out with that.”

Wells and Makk became a high-profile case when the San Francisco Chronicle profiled them in July and reported on the U.S. Customs & Immigration Service’s decision to deny the couple a green card. Even though the couple was married in Massachusetts in 2004 and has been together 19 years, they were unable to receive a green card because of DOMA.

But the letter dated Jan. 4 from U.S. Customs & Immigration Services states that Makk has been granted temporary deferment and won’t have to worry about deportation for that period of time.

“This is to advise you that effective today, January 4, 2012, you have been granted deferred action for a period of two years,” the letter states. “This action will expire on January 3, 2014.”

The letter explains that the deferred action is the result of prosecutorial discretion being exercised by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, but doesn’t confer or alter any immigration status.

Still, the letter also states that as a person granted deferred action, Makk can apply for employment authorization in the United States. Additionally, he’s eligible for an extension of this deferred action beyond the two years that have already been allotted.

USCIS didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on why Wells and Makk were given deferred action in their case.

The decision falls within the scope of the prosecutorial discretion memo on deportations that the Department of Homeland Security issued in June. Additionally, the move is consistent with the Obama administration’s plan announced in August to take low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline on a case-by-case basis.

Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, which is handling the Wells and Makk case, said the action marks the first time the administration has moved to protect a bi-national couple before the start of removal proceedings.

“For the first time, the federal government has intervened, prior to the initiation of removal proceedings, to grant real, tangible relief to a married bi-national couple,” Ralls said. “The decision to grant Anthony deferred action, which can be renewed beyond the initial two years if needed, is a welcome change from the uncertainty and threats of separation that have hung over this family, so and many others, in the past.”

In a statement, Pelosi called the deferred action a “positive resolution of Anthony’s immigration petition” and a “personal victory” for Makk and Wells.

“Anthony would have faced deportation because of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, even though he has lived in the United States for more than 20 years, has no criminal history, has never lived here illegally and is the primary caregiver to his husband,” Pelosi said. “The Obama Administration’s recent efforts to prioritize immigration enforcement for the removal of criminals and others who pose a threat to national security helped pave the way for today’s good news.”

Pelosi wasn’t the only lawmaker who helped. Wells said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and gay State Sen. Mark Leno, who represents San Francisco in the California Legislature, also had roles in pressuring the U.S. government to allow his partner to remain in the United States.

Even though USCIS has taken action, Wells said he isn’t sure whether the remedy will be enough because Makk is unable to leave the country under his current status.

“”I know that Anthony cannot leave the country and come back,” Wells said. “That’s something that still worries me. If something should happen to a family member in Australia, if one of his relatives dies, or if one his relatives gets really sick, he will not be able to go back to his family there.”

Immigration Equality’s Ralls said the administration can take further action to protect other bi-national gay couples in similar situations to Wells and Makk.

“While the best solution remains a policy that would provide lesbian and gay spouses, just like straight spoues, an opportunity to obtain a green card, this action is significant nonetheless,” Ralls said. “Moving forward, it should be repeated for other couples until DOMA is repealed or UAFA is law.”

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