National
Bi-national couples await relief under Obama policy change
New hope, as immigration enforcement shifts focus

Brian Andersen is nervously awaiting a phone call from U.S. immigration officials.
Andersen, an American citizen who married his spouse,Ā Anton Tanumihardja, an Indonesian national, in D.C. in June, hopes that U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement will deem the deportation proceedings againstĀ Tanumihardja to be a low priority and take him out of the pipeline for potential separation from the country.
“To be a little cliche, it really would feel like a burden would be lifted from our shoulders,” Andersen said. “Of course I do know in the back of my mind, that certainly isn’t the end of the road, but it would certainly take the immediate threat away of the government tearing my spouse away from me.”
MORE IN THE BLADE: DHS GUIDANCE ON IMMIGRATION OMITS SAME-SEX COUPLES
Such an opportunity is possible for Andersen andĀ Tanumihardja thanks to new guidance that the Obama administration unveiled last week in immigration policy. In a letter to the Senate, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano last week indicated that authorities will conduct a case-by-case review of the approximately 300,000 undocumented immigrants facing possible deportation to determine which cases are high priority and low priority for separation from the country.
Those who have beenĀ convicted of crimes or pose a security risk will be a higher priority for deportation, while those who are deemed lower priority will be taken out of the pipeline.Ā Administration officials will weighĀ a personās ties and contributions to the community and family relationships. The Obama administration has said these criteria are inclusive of LGBT families and same-sex couples.
TanumihardjaĀ has lived in the United States since 2002 and has sought residency in the United States through the asylum process. After losing his bid for residency through this process, he was served with a final deportation order and was set for separation on Feb. 14. However, immigration officials postponed the deportation temporarily and Tanumihardja must continue to check in with ICE officials. At any time, the deportation office can set a date for his separation from the country.
Andersen, who lives in Philadelphia with his spouse, said a call from ICE removing Tanumihardja from proceedingsĀ would provide immediate relief until action is taken to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
“It doesn’t solve the larger issue of the discrimination of the Defense of Marriage Act, and still wouldn’t allow me to sponsor Anton for permanent residence, but it is a step in the right direction and would allow us the peace of mind knowing we can stay and continue to fight together for full marriage equality,” Andersen said.
Under current immigration law, 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 arenāt available to gay Americans because the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of same-sex unions, which are only legal in six states and D.C.
Consequently, foreign nationals who are in committed relationships with gay Americans may have to leave the United States or face deportation ā which could meanĀ separation from their partner ā if these foreign nationals are discovered to be undocumented or upon expiration of their temporary visas. The new policy guidance offers an opportunity for the Obama administration to cancel the deportation of these foreign nationals, enabling them to remain in the country with their partners.
Lavi Soloway, founder of Stop the Deportations and an immigration lawyer who handles deportation cases for same-sex couples, said Napalitano’s guidance demonstrates the Obama administration is offering “a greater degree of sensitivity” to LGBT families.
“Those individuals who are facing deportation, but who are married to a gay or lesbian American citizen have a more receptive Department of Homeland Security to communicate their request for prosecutorial discretion than perhaps a few weeks ago,” Soloway said.
The change builds off an existing June 17 memo from the Department of Homeland Security enablingĀ immigration officials to exercise discretion in deportation cases that arenāt deemed high priority. Soloway said the guidelines now are still the same as when this earlier memo was issued, but the administration has signaled “an aggressive interest in setting aside low priority cases, and that would include cases involving LGBT families.”
But Soloway noted that the Obama administration has offered no timeline for when officials will complete the removal of foreign nationals in same-sex marriage from the deportation pipeline, nor whether this change would mean an end to all DOMA-related deportations.
“We don’t know how long it will take for the government to work through its pipeline of cases, and so any bi-national couples who are at risk of being torn apart through deportation should be advocating for themselves and should be presenting the evidence and making the argument to deportation officers or prosecutors,” Soloway said.
Gillian Christensen, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, responded to the Blade’s request to comment on timing with the following statement.
āICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, recent border crossers and egregious immigration law violators, such as those who have been previously removed from theĀ United States,” Christensen said. “The agency exercises prosecutorial discretion, on a case by case basis, as necessary to focus resources on these priorities.”
One couple that had been in deportation proceedings has already found relief after Napolitano issued the new guidance. Alex Benshimol and Douglas Gentry, a married gay bi-national couple in California, learned on Saturday that ICE dropped proceedings againstĀ Benshimol, a Venezuelan native.
In a statement, Gentry said the decision by ICE to exercise prosecutorial discretion and takeĀ Benshimol out of the deportation pipeline, effectively taking him out of danger, is “extremely encouraging.”
“This should bring hope to so many couples in our situation,” Gentry said. “As happy as Alex is, heās still uncertain. We will still have to fight for full equality because DOMA prevents me from petitioning for his green card. But the constant fear of exile or separation is over, and for that weāre very grateful.”
The case marks the second time this year that ICE has dropped deportation proceedings against a same-sex couple. In July, immigration officials discontinued proceedings againstĀ Henry Velandia, a gay Venezuelan national, who lives in New Jersey with his spouse, Josh Vandiver.
Another couple that could receive a call from ICE and obtain relief is Sujey and Violeta Pando. The Denver, Colo, couple, who have been together five years and married last year in Iowa, received media attention last week after an immigration judge decided to postpone deportation proceedings against Sujey, a Mexican national, until January.
Violeta told the Blade that a phone call from ICE informing the couple that Sujey would be taken out of the pipeline for deportation would make them “so happy there’d be no words to describe the feeling.”
“I think there’s a possibility because under Secretary Napolitano’s memo, it listed some categories, and Sujey fits all those categories,” Violeta said. “So, I don’t see why not, she has ties to the community, she’s married to me, she’s not a criminal.”
Growing up in Mexico, Sujey was ostracized by her family for being a tom-boy and says she was raped and beaten growing up. At the age of 16, she was brought into the United States. Her deportation troubles started in 2008, when she was arrested after a traffic violation and taken to jail. ICE was notified and deportation proceedings started against her.
The specter of deportation, Violeta said, still concerns the couple and they don’t know what action they’d take if a deportation was ordered against Sujey.
“We try not to look at that as an option,” Violeta said. “I don’t know what I would do. We don’t look at that as an option, we need to fight for this. It all goes back to DOMA. So, no, not an option.”
But the new guidance would only affect gay foreign nationals who are currently facing deportation proceedings. Gay foreign nationals in same-sex relationships who are seeking legal status and protections, but haven’t yet had deportation proceedings started against them, aren’t affected the Obama administration’s change.
One such bi-national same-sex couple isĀ Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, an Australian national. The San Francisco couple were married in Massachusetts seven years ago and have lived together 19 years. Wells and Makk came into public view earlier this month after the San Francisco Chronicle profiled them and reported that U.S. Customs & Immigration Enforcement on July 26 denied Makk a marriage-based green card for residency on the basis of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Makk is the primary caregiver forĀ Wells, who’s living with AIDS. Wells told the Blade he’d be faced with significant challenges in continuing to care for himself should the U.S. government order deportation of his spouse.
“If he was deported, I’d be here all alone, I wouldn’t have anyone to assist me,” Wells said. “I would find it impossible to take care of all the things I would need to take care of to manage my day-to-day life. I would not be able to do everything I have to do.”
Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, which is handing Wells and Makk’s case, said their story underscores the fact that same-sexĀ immigrant families need earlier intervention and a more permanent solution to put them on equal legal footing with opposite-sex couples.
“While the administrationās decision to interveneĀ and halt deportation proceedings is a welcome step in the right direction, our government should not be forcing couples to face a worst-case scenario in order to receive even minimal relief,” Ralls said.
To ensure greater protection, Ralls said the Obama administration shouldĀ implement a policy of holding spousal applications for married bi-national same-sex couples until either the courts or Congress lift DOMA from the books.
“That allows more families to maintain legal status, and legal protections, which is a far better option than waiting until deportation orders are issued and families have been forced out of status,” Ralls said. “The administration has offered to loosen the noose in a last-minute reprieve for some families. Instead, they should be stepping up, and offering help, before families are faced with such dire circumstances.”
Immigration Equality on Wednesday appealed the denial of the marriage-based green card to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.Ā The appeal gives him no legal status while pending, but if granted, would then place him back in legal status. Ralls said an attempt to remove him while the appeal is pending would be unusual because a successful appeal would permit him to remain in the United States legally.
Even though the policy change wouldn’t directly impact the San Francisco couple, Wells said he thinks the more rigorous attention that bi-national same-sex couples would receive under the case-by-case examination of deportation proceedings makes him feel “there could be hope at the very end of the road.”
“There is a possibility that if we find ourselves at the very end of the road that he may get deferred action and they won’t actually put him on a plane and fly him back to Australia, but we’re not there yet and I’m trying to get some relief before we get there,” Wells said.
NOTE: This article has been updated.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears oral arguments in LGBTQ education case
Petitioners in Mahmoud v. Taylor argue for right to opt-out of LGBTQ inclusive lessons

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about whether Montgomery County, Md., public schools violated the First Amendment rights of parents by not providing them an opportunity to opt their children out of reading storybooks that were part of an LGBTQ-inclusive literacy curriculum.
The school district voted in early 2022 to allow books featuring LGBTQ characters in elementary school language arts classes. When the county announced that parents would not be able to excuse their kids from these lessons, they sued on the grounds that their freedom to exercise the teachings of their Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths had been infringed.
The lower federal courts declined to compel the district to temporarily provide advance notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the LGBTQ inclusive curricula, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.
āLGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. āThey matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read ā so they can know theyāre not alone. And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved.”
She added, “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.ā
GLAD Law, NCLR, Family Equality, and COLAGE submitted a 40-page amicus brief on April 9, which argued the storybooks “fit squarely” within the district’s language arts curriculum, the petitioners challenging the materials incorrectly characterized them as “specialized curriculum,” and that their request for a “mandated notice-and-opt-out requirement” threatens “to sweep far more broadly.”
Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG, and the National Womenās Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.
āAll students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect,ā said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal. āEnsuring that students can see themselves in the curriculum and learn about students who are different is critical for creating a positive school environment. This is particularly crucial for LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ family members who already face unique challenges.ā
The organizations’ brief cited extensive social science research pointing to the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction like “age-appropriate storybooks featuring diverse families and identities” benefits all students regardless of their identities.
Also weighing in with amici briefs on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools were the National Education Association, the ACLU, and the American Psychological Association.
Those writing in support of the parents challenging the district’s policy included the Center for American Liberty, the Manhattan Institute, Parents Defending Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Trump-Vance administration’s U.S. Department of Justice, and a coalition of Republican members of Congress.
U.S. Supreme Court
LGBTQ groups: SCOTUS case threatens coverage of preventative services beyond PrEP
Kennedy v. Braidwood oral arguments heard Monday

Following Monday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., LGBTQ groups issued statements warning the case could imperil coverage for a broad swath of preventative services and medications beyond PrEP, which is used to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV through sex.
Plaintiffs brought the case to challenge a requirement that insurers and group health plans cover the drug regimen, arguing that the mandate “encourage[s] homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.ā
The case has been broadened, however, such that cancer screenings, heart disease medications, medications for infants, and several other preventive care services are in jeopardy, according to a press release that GLAAD, Lambda Legal, PrEP4All, Harvard Lawās Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI), and the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) released on Monday.
The Trump-Vance administration has argued the independent task force responsible for recommending which preventative services must be covered with no cost-sharing for patients is constitutional because the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can exercise veto power and fire members of the volunteer panel of national experts in disease prevention and evidence-based medicine.
While HHS secretaries have not exercised these powers since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, Braidwood could mean Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., takes a leading role in determining which services are included in the coverage mandate.
Roll Call notes the Supreme Court case comes as the administration has suspended grants to organizations that provide care for and research HIV while the ongoing restructuring of HHS has raised questions about whether the āEnding the HIV Epidemicā begun under Trump’s first term will be continued.
āTodayās Supreme Court hearing in the Braidwood case is a pivotal moment for the health and rights of all Americans,” said GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis. “This case, rooted in discriminatory objections to medical necessities like PrEP, can undermine efforts to end the HIV epidemic and also jeopardize access to essential services like cancer screenings and heart disease medications, disproportionately affecting LGBTQ people and communities of color.”
She added, “Religious exemptions should not be weaponized to erode healthcare protections and restrict medically necessary, life-saving preventative healthcare for every American.ā
Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Jose Abrigo said, āThe Braidwood case is about whether science or politics will guide our nationās public health policy. Allowing ideological or religious objections to override scientific consensus would set a dangerous precedent. Although this case began with an attack on PrEP coverage, a critical HIV prevention tool, it would be a serious mistake to think this only affects LGBTQ people.”
“The real target is one of the pillars of the Affordable Care Act: The preventive services protections,” Abrigo said. “That includes cancer screenings, heart disease prevention, diabetes testing, and more. If the plaintiffs succeed, the consequences will be felt across every community in this country, by anyone who relies on preventive care to stay healthy.”
He continued, “Whatās at stake is whether we will uphold the promise of affordable and accessible health care for all or allow a small group of ideologues to dismantle it for everyone. We as a country are only as healthy as our neighbors and an attack on one groupās rights is an attack on all.ā
PrEP4All Executive Director Jeremiah Johnson said, “We are hopeful that the justices will maintain ACA protections for PrEP and other preventive services, however, advocates are poised to fight for access no matter the outcome.”
He continued, “Implementing cost-sharing would have an enormous impact on all Americans, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Over 150 million people could suddenly find themselves having to dig deep into already strained household budgets to pay for care that they had previously received for free. Even small amounts of cost sharing lead to drops in access to preventive services.”
“For PrEP, just a $10 increase in the cost of medication doubled PrEP abandonment rates in a 2024 modeling study,” Johnson said. “Loss of PrEP access would be devastating with so much recent progress in reining in new HIV infections in the U.S. This would also be a particularly disappointing time to lose comprehensive coverage for PrEP with a once every six month injectable version set to be approved this summer.ā
āTodayās oral arguments in the Braidwood case underscore what is at stake for the health and well-being of millions of Americans,” said CHLPI Clinical Fellow Anu Dairkee. “This case is not just about legal technicalities ā it is about whether people across the country will continue to have access to the preventive health services they need, without cost sharing, regardless of who they are or where they come from.”
She continued, “Since the Affordable Care Actās preventive services provision took effect in 2010, Americans have benefited from a dramatic increase in the use of services that detect disease early, promote healthy living, and reduce long-term health costs. These benefits are rooted in the work of leading scientists and public health experts, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose recommendations are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence.”
“Any shift away from cost-free access to preventive care could have wide-ranging implications, potentially limiting access for those who are already navigating economic hardship and health disparities,” Dairkee said. “If Braidwood prevails, the consequences will be felt nationwide. We risk losing access to lifesaving screenings and preventive treatments that have become standard care over the past decade.”
“This case should serve as a wake-up call: Science, not politics, must guide our health care system,” she said. “The health of our nation depends on it.ā
āWe are grateful for the Justices who steadfastly centered constitutionality and didn’t allow a deadly political agenda to deter them from their job at hand,” said CHLP Staff Attorney Kae Greenberg. “While we won’t know the final decision until June, what we do know now is not having access to a full range of preventative healthcare is deadly for all of us, especially those who live at the intersections of racial, gender and economic injustice.”
“We are crystal clear how the efforts to undermine the ACA, of which this is a very clear attempt, fit part and parcel into an overall agenda to rollback so much of the ways our communities access dignity and justice,” he said. “Although the plaintiffsā arguments today were cloaked in esoteric legal language, at itās heart, this case revolves around the Christian Rightās objection to ‘supporting’ those who they do not agree with, and is simply going to result in people dying who would otherwise have lived long lives.”
“This is why CHLP is invested and continues in advocacy with our partners, many of whom are included here,” Greenberg said.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to hear Md. religious freedom case on Tuesday
Advocacy groups to rally outside during Mahmoud v. Taylor oral arguments

Activists on Tuesday will hold a rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear oral arguments in a case that will determine whether schools are violating parentsā religious freedom by not letting them opt their children out of learning about LGBTQ-specific topics.
Mahmoud v. Taylor is a case out of Montgomery County about parents who wish to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons in public schools for religious reasons.Ā
Montgomery County Public Schools, after initially allowing parents to opt their children out, changed the policy in March 2023.
The plaintiffs ā Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, and other parents ā argue āthe storybooks were chosen to disrupt ācisnormativityā and āeither/or thinkingā among students.ā
āThe board’s own principals objected that the curriculum was ānot appropriate for the intended age group,ā presented gender ideology as āfact,ā āsham[ed]ā students with contrary opinions, and was ādismissive of religious beliefs,āā according to the petition on the Supreme Courtās website.
The petition goes further, saying the parents are ānot challenging the curriculum, but arguing that compelling their elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parentsā religious convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause. Construing Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 4th Circuit found no free-exercise burden because no one was forced āto change their religious beliefs or conduct.āā
The Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities, an organization that aims to bring together āadvocates, educators, families, and organizations committed to inclusive, affirming, fact and science-based education,ā will participate in the āRally for Inclusive Educationā rally outside the Supreme Court alongside Live In Your Truth and the Montgomery County Pride Family.
āInclusive education isnāt just a value ā itās a necessity,ā said Phillip Alexander Downie, co-chair of the Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities and CEO of Montgomery County Pride Family. āThe right of every child to learn in an environment where they see themselves reflected, affirmed, and respected is under attack. This rally is our moment to protect that right ā and ensure future generations inherit classrooms rooted in truth, equity, equality, and justice.ā
The Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities says the rally is a ānonpartisan community gathering rooted in education, advocacy, and solidarity.ā
āThe focus of this event is to uplift the importance of inclusive learning environments, celebrate the power of diversity in our schools, and amplify the voices of those most impacted by exclusionary practices and rhetoric,ā it said.
The rally will feature speakers from across the country, including students, educators, civil rights leaders, and authors who will give their own testimonies as to why it is important to have inclusivity in primary education. Trans Maryland, the National Womenās Law Center, MoCoPride Center, and Authors Against Book Bans are among the LGBTQ groups sponsoring the event.
-
Obituary4 days ago
Local attorney, LGBTQ rights advocate Dale Sanders dies at 75
-
U.S. Federal Courts3 days ago
Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order
-
Mexico4 days ago
Gay couple claims Puerto Vallarta wedding venue discriminated against them
-
Books3 days ago
āPronoun Troubleā reminds us that punctuation matters