National
Kerry seeks to aid lesbian bi-national couple
With expiration of student visa, woman faces deportation to Pakistan
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is seeking to aid a married lesbian couple in his state by asking the Department of Homeland Security to take administrative action to ensure the foreign national in the relationship won’t be deported to Pakistan.
In a redacted letter dated March 27 and obtained last week by the Washington Blade, Kerry asks Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to hold in abeyance the I-130 marriage-based green card petition for the couple until the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned either by Congress or the courts.
“I know that you and I both believe that every family is worthy of recognition and respect, and that no family should be torn apart based on a discriminatory law,” Kerry writes. “Abeyance will allow this remarkable young couple to move forward with their dream of building a life together at home in Massachusetts.”
Gloria (right) and Jackie could be faced with separation if their green card application isn't placed in abeyance. (Photo courtesy Stop the Deportations)
The couple is using their first names only, Gloria, a Pakistani national, and Jackie, who are both 24 and reside together in Beverly, Mass. The two met as roommates in college in 2008 and their shared Christian faith brought them closer. After falling in love, they married in Massachusetts in October.
But Gloria’s student visa expired after she could no longer afford tuition and had to stop attending school last year, ending her legal status in the country and putting her in a situation where she could be deported to Pakistan.
In March, Jackie filed a marriage-based green card petition to sponsor Gloria for residency in the United States. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services has yet to make a decision on the petition, but it will likely be denied unless it’s held in abeyance because DOMA prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Their attorney, Lavi Soloway, co-founder of Stop the Deportations and partner at Masliah & Soloway, redacted their last names in the letter he gave to the Blade, saying he did so at their request out of concern for their safety and safety of family members overseas. He also declined to disclose the school they both attended.
Recalling that the Obama administration has determined DOMA was unconstitutional and stopped defending the anti-gay law in court, Kerry writes this announcement last year left many same-sex couples “wondering how that will apply to their pending cases” and enables an opportunity for action.
“Among those harmed by the discrimination enshrined in law by DOMA are many of my constituents in Massachusetts who face separation from husbands, wives, grandparents, grandchildren, extended family, colleagues and community,” the senator says.
Kerry writes that the case of Gloria and Jackie “clearly justifies” action because of the potentially harsh treatment Gloria would face if sent back to Pakistan. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by jail time there and Christians have been known to face persecution in the country.
“She is certain that if she is forced to return to Pakistan, her life will be in danger, not only because of her sexual orientation and her marriage to a United States citizen, but for religious reasons as well,” Kerry writes.
It’s not the first time Kerry has asked the Obama administration to take action to stop the separation of bi-national same-sex couples. In April 2011, Kerry led a group of 12 senators who signed a letter to Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security asking that the marriage-based green card petitions for these couples be held in abeyance.
In a phone interview, Gloria said she and her spouse “feel very frustrated” they face this situation that wouldn’t be before them if they were an opposite-sex couple. She said she believes the effort will be worthwhile if “some positive outcome could come out of all this work that we’re putting into it.”
Additionally, Gloria said she dreads the prospect of having to return to Pakistan and face persecution because of her religious beliefs and sexual orientation.
“That would be just a devastating situation,” Gloria said. “We don’t even want to think about it. We have built our lives together here in America and our home is here. Our friends and family, and everything that we’ve built together is here.”
In a statement, Jackie also expressed frustration that DOMA precludes her from protecting her spouse and that the Obama administration hasn’t yet taken action to protect married bi-national couples.
“It hurts, as an American, to think that my government causes me and my wife so much distress by allowing DOMA to do so much harm,” Jackie said. “It is not what I expected of President Obama; I expected more. My wife and I met in college over three and half years [ago] and plan to continue building our lives together. Part of our future will now be this fight for full equality.”
Jackie added that coming out publicly with their story wasn’t an easy decision because they fear it may mean backlash for Gloria’s family in Pakistan — as well as for Gloria if she’s forced to return to the country.
“But we will not stand by helpless while our marriage is treated as nothing by the federal government,” Jackie said. “I know that our president in his heart does not want to do harm to our marriage, and I am disappointed that he’s letting this happen when he has the power to stop it.”
Soloway said the president’s opposition to DOMA should be “matched with deeds,” and that halting the denial of marriage-based green card petitions would be consistent with the administration’s stated belief that same-sex couples shouldn’t be forced to make a choice between staying together and staying in the country.
“The president has an opportunity to develop policy that protects all LGBT families impacted by DOMA,” Soloway said. “He must now act to save Jackie and Gloria and thousands of lesbian and gay bi-national couples who, just like them, want nothing more than to be able to live their lives in peace.”
LGBT rights supporters have repeatedly asked the Obama administration to hold the marriage-based green cards for bi-national same-sex couples in abeyance on several occasions, and each time, officials have responded that they’ll continue to enforce DOMA while it’s on the books.
According to The Advocate, LGBT groups met with White House officials in January to discuss the possibility of putting the green cards in abeyance and administration officials told the advocates that such action wouldn’t be taken.
Peter Boogard, a DHS spokesperson, expressed a similar sentiment when asked by the Blade to comment on the Kerry letter.
“DHS responds directly to members of Congress, not through the media,” Boogard said. “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 is a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional.”
While the administration hasn’t taken action to hold the marriage-based green card applications in abeyance, it has said it would include bi-national same-sex couples as part of an effort announced in August to take low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline by granting them prosecutorial discretion.
The criteria for being taken out of the deportation pipeline include a person’s ties and contributions to their community and family relationships, and administration officials have said these criteria are inclusive of LGBT families and same-sex couples. An informed source said individuals whose I-130 is denied because of DOMA typically don’t receive a notice to appear for deportation hearings in court, unless there are additional derogatory factors.
But Soloway said whether Gloria will be placed into deportation proceedings is hardly the point if her green card application is denied because she’s “vulnerable to deportation every day.”
“She can be placed into proceedings simply because her immigration status as a foreign student has lapsed,” Soloway said. “Her school was required to report her to Immigration Services when she was no longer enrolled as a student. Every night, Jackie and Gloria go to sleep not knowing if their luck will run out. Will tomorrow be the day on which Gloria comes into contact with an overzealous police officer who stops and questions her and takes her into custody when her immigration status is discovered?”
Soloway also said holding the green card application in abeyance is the only way for Gloria to remain in legal status to enable her to hold a job or maintain a valid driver’s license.
“She cannot support herself and build a stable and secure future with Jackie as any other married couple would,” Soloway said. “She is trapped and can never leave the country because if she does she will be prohibited from returning. This untenable situation is the result of DOMA, and would be mitigated if their green card case were simply held in abeyance.”
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.
LGBTQ leaders celebrate Frank Kameny’s 100th birthday at Supreme Court
Blade’s Lou Chibbaro subject of new film premiering May 29
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
