Latest news with #APWashington
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Health
- Business Standard
US FDA approves Moderna's new lower-dose Covid-19 vaccine 'mNexspike'
It's made in a way that allows for a lower dose a fifth of the dose of its current Covid-19 vaccine, Spikevax by refining its immune target AP Washington The US approved a new Covid-19 vaccine made by Moderna late Friday but with limits on who can use it not a replacement for the company's existing shot, but a second option. The new vaccine, mNexspike, is a step toward next-generation coronavirus vaccines. It's made in a way that allows for a lower dose a fifth of the dose of its current Covid-19 vaccine, Spikevax by refining its immune target. The approval adds an important new tool to help protect people at high risk of severe disease from Covid-19, Stephane Bancel, Moderna's CEO, said in a statement Saturday. The Food and Drug Administration approved the new vaccine for use in all adults 65 and older, and for people age 12 to 64 who have a least one health condition that puts them at increased risk from the coronavirus. That's the same limit that the FDA set in licensing another Covid-19 vaccine option from competitor Novavax. Those restrictions are a departure from how the US has handled Covid-19 vaccines until now, reflecting skepticism about vaccines from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other Trump officials. Moderna's existing vaccine doesn't face those limits and has long been used for anyone ages 6 months and older. The company said it expected to offer both options this fall. The FDA's approval was based on a study of 11,400 people age 12 and older that compared the new low-dose vaccine with Moderna's existing vaccine. It found the new vaccine was safe and was at least as effective and more by some measures than the original shot, the company said. The news came just days after the Trump administration cancelled funding for Moderna to develop a vaccine against potential pandemic flu viruses, including the H5N1 bird flu, despite promising early study results. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Judge weighs sweeping remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google
US District Judge Amit Mehta on Friday heard closing arguments from Justice Department lawyers who argued that a radical shake-up is needed to promote a free and fair market AP Washington The fate and fortunes of one of the world's most powerful tech companies now sits in the hands of a US judge wrestling with whether to impose far-reaching changes upon Google in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly. US District Judge Amit Mehta on Friday heard closing arguments from Justice Department lawyers who argued that a radical shake-up is needed to promote a free and fair market. Their proposed remedies include a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google's legal team argued that only minor concessions are needed and urged Mehta not to unduly punish the company with a harsh ruling that could squelch future innovations. Google also argued that the upheaval triggered by advances in Artificial Intelligence are already reshaping the search landscape, as conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. It was an argument that Mehta appeared to give serious consideration as he marvelled at the speed at which the AI industry was growing. He also indicated that he was still undecided on how much AI's potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. This is what I've been struggling with, Mehta said. Mehta spoke frequently at Friday's hearing, often asking probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides, while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps' proposed remedies. We're not looking to kneecap Google, the judge said, adding that the goal was to kickstart competitors' ability to challenge the search giant's dominance. Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labour Day (September 1). Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. Google's attorney John Schmidtlein asked Mehta to put a 60-day delay on implementing any proposed changes, which justice prosecutor David Dahlquist immediately objected to. We believe the market's waited long enough, Dahlquist said. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing that additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc, is valued at USD 2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate has also pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than USD 20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Judge refuses to block Trump admin from removing copyright office director
Earlier this month, Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to replace Carla Hayden as Librarian of Congress AP Washington A federal judge on Wednesday refused to temporarily block the Donald Trump administration from removing and replacing the director of the US Copyright Office. US District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled from the bench that the office director, Shira Perlmutter, hasn't met her legal burden to show how removing her from the position would cause her to suffer irreparable harm. Kelly's refusal to issue a temporary restraining order isn't the final word in the lawsuit that Perlmutter filed last week. If Perlmutter decides to seek a preliminary injunction, the judge is giving her attorneys and government lawyers until Thursday afternoon to present him with a proposed schedule for arguing and deciding the matter. Perlmutter's attorneys say she is a renowned copyright expert who also has served as Register of Copyrights since the Librarian of Congress appointed her to the job in October 2020. As Register, Perlmutter is a critical advisor to Congress on matters of important legislative interest and administers the Nation's copyright system, her lawyers wrote. Earlier this month, Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to replace Carla Hayden as Librarian of Congress. The White House fired Hayden on May 8 amid criticism from conservatives that she was advancing a woke agenda. The Library of Congress is not an autonomous organisation free from political supervision, government lawyers wrote. The administration said Blanche replaced Perlmutter with Paul Perkins, an associate deputy attorney general and veteran Justice Department attorney. Perlmutter's lawyers argued that the president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally remove the Register of Copyrights or appoint an acting Librarian of Congress. Defendants' actions are blatantly unlawful, and they threaten severe and irreparable harm to Perlmutter and her ability to fulfil the duties entrusted to her under the law, they wrote. Government lawyers argued that blocking Perlmutter's removal would amount to a "severe intrusion into the president's authority to exercise executive power. Kelly said it is striking that nobody from Congress is involved in the lawsuit. He said the absence of Congress from the case has to impact my assessment of Perlmutter's request for a temporary restraining order. But the judge also emphasised that the case has been pending for fewer than three business days and has produced a very limited record for him to consider so far.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Trump's campaign against law firms sees setback as judge blocks order
The ruling on Tuesday in favour of WilmerHale marks the third time this month that a federal judge in Washington has deemed Trump's series of law firm executive orders AP Washington US President Donald Trump's campaign against the legal profession hit another setback as a federal judge struck down an executive order that sought to sanction one of the country's most prestigious law firms. The ruling on Tuesday in favour of WilmerHale marks the third time this month that a federal judge in Washington has deemed Trump's series of law firm executive orders to be unconstitutional and permanently barred their enforcement. The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! wrote US district judge Richard Leon. To permit the order to stand, Leon wrote, would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers". The firm applauded the ruling from Leon, an appointee of former Republican president George W Bush. The court's decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients. We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients, a spokesperson for the firm said. The ruling was similar to the one from Friday by a different judge that rejected a Trump edict against the firm of Jenner and Block and another one from earlier in the month in favour of the firm Perkins Coie. Taken together, the decisions have marked a blunt repudiation of Trump's actions, which the law firms have called an affront to the legal system and inconsistent with the foundational principle that lawyers can represent clients or causes without government reprisal. The firms faced executive orders that sought to impose the same set of punishing sanctions, including mandating the suspension of attorney security clearances and barring employees from accessing federal buildings. The orders have been part of a broader effort by the president to reshape American civil society by targeting perceived adversaries in hopes of extracting concessions from them and bending them to his will. In his ruling, Leon said the provisions of the order against WilmerHale constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech! The Order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm's ability to effectively represent its clients! He added: The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavoured by President Trump, you will be punished! Several of the firms singled out for sanctions have either done legal work that Trump has opposed, or currently have or previously had associations with prosecutors who at one point investigated the president. The order against WilmerHale, for instance, cited the fact that the firm previously employed former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, who led an investigation during Trump's first term into potential ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
US government didn't follow court order on deportations, says judge
Government attorneys argued that the men had a history with the immigration system, giving them prior opportunities to express a fear of being deported to a country outside their homeland AP Washington The White House violated a court order on deportations to third countries with a flight linked to the chaotic African nation of South Sudan, a federal judge said Wednesday, hours after the Trump administration said it had expelled eight immigrants convicted of violent crimesbut refused to reveal where they would end up. The judge's statement was a notably strong rebuke to the government's deportation efforts. In an emergency hearing he called to address reports that immigrants had been sent to South Sudan, Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston said the eight migrants aboard the plane were not given a meaningful opportunity to object that the deportation could put them in danger. Minutes before the hearing, administration officials accused activist judges of advocating the release of dangerous criminals. The department actions in this case are unquestionably in violation of this court's order, Murphy said Wednesday, arguing that the deportees didn't have meaningful opportunity to object to being sent to South Sudan. The group was flown out of the United States just hours after getting notice, leaving them no chance to contact lawyers who could object in court. Government attorneys argued that the men had a history with the immigration system, giving them prior opportunities to express a fear of being deported to a country outside their homeland. They also pointed out that the judge had not specified the exact time needed between notice and deportation, leaving room for misunderstanding. The government calls the deported people true national security threats The migrants' home countries Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan would not take them back, according to Todd Lyons, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who spoke to reporters in Washington. He later said the migrants either came from countries that often do not take back all their deported citizens or had other situations that meant they could not be sent home. These represent the true national security threats, Lyons said at a news conference. Behind him was a display of photos of men he said had been convicted of rape, homicide, armed robbery and other crimes. Administration officials, who have repeatedly clashed with the courts over their attempts to deport large numbers of immigrants, made their displeasure clear Wednesday. President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem are working every single day to get these vicious criminals off of American streets and while activist judges are on the other side, fighting to get them back onto the United States soil, said Tricia McLaughlin, a department spokesperson. She pointed to the photographs and described them as the monsters that Murphy is trying to protect. Homeland Security officials released few specific details about the deportation flight. They said it left Tuesday with eight people on board and said they remained in the department's custody Wednesday. Officials said they could not disclose the migrants' final destination because of safety and operational security. The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight is the latest flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president's policies. Lawsuits on immigration issues are everywhere With Congress largely silent or supportive, opponents of Trump's agenda have filed hundreds of lawsuits and judges have issued dozens of orders against the administration. Immigration has been the most contentious issue. There was the mistaken deportation of an immigrant who was living in Maryland to a prison in El Salvador, as well as Trump's push to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without a court review. The administration officials insisted that the deported men had received due process, but did not provide details. Immigration-rights attorneys argue they violated Murphy's order, first handed down in March, that says people must have a chance to argue that going somewhere outside their homeland would put them in danger before being deported, even if they've otherwise exhausted their legal appeals. The government is still refusing to provide due process to our clients, which means they are not giving them notice of the country to which they're being deported, proper notice in a language that they understand, and not giving them a meaningful opportunity to claim fear based on those countries, Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said outside court. These are countries that the State Department doesn't want Americans to travel to. They are categorically not safe, she added. In court, Realmuto asked the judge to return the individuals to the United States. They are no less deserving of protection than any other human beings on this planet, she said. The government argued the interviews with the men over their fears could be done where they are currently being held and confirmed with Murphy that they can be arranged. Realmuto called this a logistical nightmare that penalizes the men because the government violated the judge's order. She said it would prove a challenge to get the men legal counsel and interpreters, an effort complicated by the time difference. Murphy, who raised the prospect of criminal contempt for anyone involved in an illegal deportation, said he would come up with a remedy as soon as Wednesday night. He seemed satisfied with a new set of interviews conducted abroad with the migrants as long as an appropriate place with appropriate privacy can be found. He also said the government was welcome to bring the migrants back. The countries of origin vary Attorneys for the immigrants told the judge that immigration authorities may have sent as many as a dozen people from several countries to Africa. The apparent removal of one man from the troubled Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar was confirmed in an email from an immigration official in Texas, according to court documents. He was informed only in English, a language he does not speak well, and his lawyers learned of the plan hours before his deportation flight, they said. A woman also reported that her husband from Vietnam and up to 10 other people were flown to Africa on Tuesday morning, attorneys from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance wrote. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, previously found that any plans to deport people to Libya without notice would clearly violate his ruling. South Sudan says it's unaware of any arrivals South Sudan's police spokesperson, Maj. Gen. James Monday Enoka, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that no migrants had arrived in the country and that if they do, they would be investigated and redeported to their correct country if found not to be South Sudanese. Edmund Yakani, executive director of the South Sudanese group Community Empowerment for Progress Organization, questioned why people convicted of crimes in the United States would be sent there. Is South Sudan a land of less human who deserve to receive perpetrators of human rights violations? Without any public explanation? he asked. Some countries do not accept deportations from the United States. That has led the administration to strike agreements with other countries, including Panama, to house them. The U.S. has sent Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime law, an action being contested in the courts. South Sudan has endured repeated waves of violence since gaining independence from Sudan in 2011 amid hopes it could use its large oil reserves to bring prosperity to a region long battered by poverty. Just weeks ago, the country's top U.N. official warned that fighting between forces loyal to the president and a vice president threatened to spiral again into full-scale civil war. The State Department's annual report on South Sudan, published in April 2024, says significant human rights issues include arbitrary killings, disappearances, torture or inhumane treatment by security forces and extensive violence based on gender and sexual identity. The Homeland Security Department has given Temporary Protected Status to a small number of South Sudanese already living in the United States, shielding them from deportation because conditions were deemed unsafe for return. Noem recently extended those protections to November to allow for a more thorough review. The U.S is one of the biggest donors to South Sudan's humanitarian aid programs, with the total funding in 2024 standing at over $640 million. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
