Latest news with #Massachusetts-based
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke temporary legal status of 500,000 immigrants from 4 countries
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of more than 500,000 immigrants that was granted by the Biden administration. The court granted an emergency application filed by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that ends the Biden program that gave 532,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela permission to temporarily live and work in the United States. The brief order noted that liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Jackson wrote that the court had failed to take into account "the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The administration was contesting a ruling by Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who said the administration could not sweep each person's status away without an individualized determination. That decision is now on hold while litigation continues. "The Supreme Court has effectively greenlit deportation orders for an estimated half a million people, the largest such de-legalization in the modern era," said Karen Tumlin, a lawyer at Justice Action Center who represents affected immigrants. "I cannot overstate how devastating this is: The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities," she added. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Starting in 2022, then-Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas granted what is called parole for two years to people from the affected countries in part to alleviate the surge arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy, known as the CHNV parole programs, allowed people to enter the country and stay if they passed a security check and had a sponsor in the United States who could provide housing. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers that Talwani did not have authority to rule on the issue, with Noem given authority to make her decision under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. The same law gave Mayorkas the discretion to allow the affected people to enter and stay in the country. The Department of Homeland Security said in October 2024 that each person's parole would not be extended once their two-year approval period expired. Noem's move to unwind the Biden action was challenged in court by individuals who would be affected, as well as the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an immigrant rights group. Their lawyers wrote in court papers that if the Trump administration action is upheld, all the parolees will immediately "become undocumented, legally unemployable, and subject to mass expulsion." They noted that Talwani's decision did not prevent Noem from ending the program, only that the government could not immediately rescind the status of the people already enrolled via a single sweeping order. The dispute is one of dozens of cases in which the Trump administration has complained about lower court judges blocking its policies even as President Donald Trump has sought to aggressively expand the power of the presidency without the authorization of Congress. This article was originally published on
NBC News
a day ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke legal status of 500,000 immigrants
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to revoke temporary legal status granted to more than 500,000 immigrants by the Biden administration. The court granted an emergency application filed by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that ends the Biden program that gave 532,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela permission to temporarily live and work in the United States. The brief order noted that liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Jackson wrote that the court had failed to take into account "the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The administration was contesting a ruling by Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who ruled the administration could not sweep away each person's status without an individualized determination. Starting in 2022, then-Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas granted what is called parole for two years to people from the affected countries in part to alleviate the surge of immigrants arriving in the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy, known as the CHNV parole programs, allowed immigrants who passed a security check and who had a sponsor in the United States who could provide housing, to enter the country and stay. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers that Talwani did not have authority to rule on the issue, with Noem given authority to make her decision under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. The same law gave Mayorkas the discretion to allow the affected immigrants to enter and stay in the country. The Department of Homeland Security said in October 2024 that each person's parole would not be extended once their two-year approval period expired. Noem's move to unwind the Biden action was challenged in court by individuals who would be affected as well as the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an immigrant rights group. Their lawyers wrote in court papers that if the Trump administration action is upheld, all the parolees will immediately "become undocumented, legally employable, and subject to mass expulsion." They noted that Talwani's decision did not prevent Noem from ending the program, only that the government could not immediately rescind the status of the people already enrolled via a single sweeping order. The dispute is one of dozens of cases in which the Trump administration has complained about lower court judges blocking its policies even as President Donald Trump has sought to aggressively expand the power of the presidency without the authorization of Congress.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Why are young women so concerned about wrinkles?
Nine out of 10 of my friends have had Botox at least once. We're in our early 30s. Suffice to say, I'm not exactly surprised by a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll that found that nearly half (49%) of women between the ages of 18 and 39 say they're concerned about wrinkles. What is startling, however, is that younger women appear to be more worried about wrinkles than older women. According to the poll, which surveyed 1,677 U.S. adults in late March, a majority of women aged 40 and older (55%) report being "not very" or "not at all" concerned about wrinkles. The same poll also found that just 20% of women over 40 said they would consider getting a cosmetic procedure (such as Botox or fillers), whereas 34% of women between the ages of 18 and 39 are open to it. It's refreshing that older women aren't so hung up on having wrinkles or feel the need to have work done. On the other hand, why are these signs of aging such a heightened source of anxiety among women who are less likely to have the fine lines or crow's feet that come with age? There are a few culprits. Bianca turned 26 during the early days of the pandemic and the consequent pivot to remote work and Zoom meetings. "Prior to that, I had never had anything done to my face," she tells me. "Not that I didn't think about it — quite a few of my friends who work in beauty had tried filler and Botox and raved about it, but I just didn't feel it was necessary yet. Then Zoom became a thing." All that time on camera had Bianca, who is now 31 years old, scrutinizing her looks. "I swear I started to see my face changing right before my eyes, which freaked me out a bit,' she says. 'I started to hyper-fixate on lines that hadn't been there before, especially on my forehead and around my eyes." She was 28 when she "finally bit the bullet and got Botox." While Bianca is happy with how it turned out — "I was worried it might make me look frozen or unnatural, but it simply smoothed out my forehead skin and made my eyes look more open," she says — the Botox wore off after just a couple of months. These days, she has a treatment once or twice a year to, she says, "feel more refreshed and look less tired." But, Bianca adds, "it's definitely a long-term investment and a part of me wishes I never started because now it's hard to stop." This shift to video meetings gave rise to not only "Zoom fatigue" — feeling drained after being on camera for most of the day — but also a form of facial dysmorphia some call "Zoom dysmorphia." According to Hilary Weingarden, a Massachusetts-based clinical psychologist with expertise in body dysmorphic disorder and body image distress, constant exposure to our on-camera selves can cause many of us to pick apart our appearance. I started to hyper-fixate on lines that hadn't been there 31 'We're looking at our own faces much more than we did before 2020,' Weingarden says. 'It's become really common to sit on video conference calls for hours of every work day. While we do this, we're often staring at our own faces. Naturally, looking at your face for hours a day leads to thinking more about your physical appearance than you might have done before, and it can be common to start comparing your appearance to those depicted in the media or ... peers. This constant self-viewing, self-judging and [comparison] to others can lead to body image dissatisfaction, stress and anxiety.' Some, like Bianca, turn to cosmetic procedures as a result. A 2023 commercial for Botox Cosmetic noted the Zoom effect. "I've been given the opportunity to work from home, so that means lots of video calls," a woman named Kim says in the ad. "I see myself more, and I definitely see those deeper lines." Instagram has evolved from a photo-sharing platform touting grainy filters into a slick, highly curated marketplace where most selfies appear to be filtered and Facetuned. Ads for skincare products claiming to turn back the clock on your face are pervasive, and many of the game-changing serums or night creams flooding your feed can be purchased right in the app with just a few taps. Click on those links, and the algorithm adjusts accordingly, sending more skincare content your way. And while beauty standards have always been unrealistic — I myself grew up comparing myself to actresses and models — social media has paved the way for even more comparisons. On YouTube, celebrities walk viewers through their personal beauty routines for Vogue, while paid influencers on Instagram and TikTok name-drop anti-aging retinols and skin-smoothing treatments and break down buzzy trends like glass skin (in which the skin is so dewy and radiant it looks like, you guessed it, glass). Dermatologist influencers have also entered the chat, normalizing preventative Botox for younger women. How could anyone consume this content and not become, well, influenced? 'We are definitely seeing an increase in younger women becoming more focused on skin aging and wrinkles, in part related to social media and the numerous products targeted for skin aging," says Dr. Marisa Garshick, a board-certified dermatologist. "Social media has made information more accessible and provided a platform for products to get more exposure." Seeing someone else — be it a celebrity or your favorite beauty influencer — try out a skin care product or treatment, she adds, provides a sense of "comfort and relatability." There's also a pressure to participate, and it skews even younger than 18. Speaking to Yahoo Life last year, dermatologist Dr. Nava Greenfield noted that "social media and trends play a large role" in the current obsession among many adolescents — the so-called Sephora kids who drop their allowance (and then some) on luxury creams "Young women are always looking for ways to improve their appearance, and media has convinced young people that focusing on skin care is a way to tweak their appearance in a way that gives them some feeling of agency," Greenfield said. Once upon a time, if you had a question about your skin, you had to turn to a professional or seek out advice from friends. Now there are not just search engines, but entire skin care communities (SkinTok, Reddit groups like Skincare Addiction, which has a whopping 4.8 million members, etc.) where you can express your concerns, ask for advice about specific products and treatments and commiserate with other young women about "premature aging." 'Are these lines normal for 22? Should I get Botox?' one redditor asks, posting a series of close-ups of her face to the group. While these forums can offer a sense of feeling less alone, they also beget more comparison. (I admit that I've been prone to my own insecure thoughts, like: At least my face looks better than hers.) The information-sharing in these communities will inevitably also teach you terms you wish you never knew existed. As someone with a chronic skin condition, learning about "inflammaging" — aka accelerated aging due to chronic inflammation — sent me into a bit of a spiral. The thought that my skin could age faster than others because I'm often inflamed is terrifying. It's not just what we see on Zoom and what pops up in our social media feeds. It's the proliferation of medspas offering microneedling and Botox, two of the procedures Garshick says is popular among many young women. It's the movie stars who suddenly look half their age. It's even, as Weingarden points out, the people we know and love. "We're also seeing — in the real world, off the TV screen and magazine pages —altered versions of what aging looks like all the time, even amongst our peers," she says. 'This is likely contributing to changing cultural beliefs about what aging 'should' look like and expectations that we 'fix' natural aging.' All this is to say, it's tough to be a young woman today. I'd like to say we are enjoying our youth. But in a society so fixated on fighting the signs of aging, it feels like we're more afraid of losing it.
India Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Judge to continue blocking Trump's move on Harvard's foreign students enrollment
A federal judge said on Wednesday that she would issue an order that would continue to block the Trump administration from immediately revoking Harvard University's ability to enroll international District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston announced her intention to issue a broad preliminary injunction shortly after the administration revealed it plans to pursue a new, lengthier administrative process to block the students' US Department of Homeland Security changed course ahead of a hearing before Burroughs over whether to extend a temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's administration from revoking the Ivy League school's right to host international students. The department in a notice sent to Harvard near midnight on Wednesday said it would give the school 30 days to contest its plans to revoke its certification under a federal program allowing it to enroll non-US Justice Department filed a copy of the notice in court two hours before Thursday's hearing. Harvard's lawyers and the judge said at the hearing that they were still processing it and assessing its impact on the school's Burroughs asked if the notice acknowledged that procedural steps were not taken, Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis replied that this wasn't necessarily the case. Instead, he said, the notice recognised that adopting the procedures Harvard advocated for would be better and said the notice made Harvard's arguments at this time moot. However, Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, expressed skepticism about that, saying "Aren't we still going to end up back here at the same place?"Ian Gershengorn, a lawyer for Harvard, told Burroughs that an injunction protecting Harvard during the administrative process was necessary, saying the school was worried about the administration's efforts to retaliate against it."The First Amendment harms we are suffering are real and continuing," he said a preliminary injunction was needed to stop any immediate changes and protect international students arriving to attend Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university says DHS's action is part of an "unprecedented and retaliatory attack on academic freedom at Harvard," which is pursuing a separate lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to terminate nearly $3 billion in federal research argues the Trump administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to its demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and filed the lawsuit a day after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on May 22 announced she was revoking its certification with the Student and Exchange Visitor said the decision was "devastating" for the school and its student body. The university, the nation's oldest and wealthiest, enrolled nearly 6,800 international students in its current school year, about 27% of its total had argued that the revocation not only violated its free speech and due process rights under the U.S Constitution but also failed to comply with DHS regulations. The regulations require it to receive 30 days to challenge the agency's allegations and an opportunity to pursue an administrative announcing the initial decision to revoke Harvard's certification, Noem, without providing evidence, accused the university of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party."In a letter that day, she accused the school of refusing to comply with wide-ranging requests for information on its student visa holders, including about any activity they engaged in that was illegal or violent or that would subject them to department's move would prevent Harvard from enrolling new international students and require existing ones to transfer to other schools or lose their legal status. Trump on Wednesday said that Harvard should have a 15% cap on the number of non-US students it InMust Watch
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
HHS cancels funding for bird flu vaccine development because of RNA concerns
The Department of Health and Human Service is pulling millions of dollars in funding for a human bird flu vaccine developed by Covid vaccine-maker Moderna. Before President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the Biden administration had awarded $766 million to the Massachusetts-based drugmaker. They invested $176 million last summer, and tacked on another $590 million in January. "While the termination of funding from HHS adds uncertainty, we are pleased by the robust immune response and safety profile observed in this interim analysis of the Phase 1/2 study of our H5 avian flu vaccine and we will explore alternative paths forward for the program," Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. "These clinical data in pandemic influenza underscore the critical role mRNA technology has played as a countermeasure to emerging health threats." HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon assured The Independent that the decision was made after a 'rigorous review.' 'This is not simply about efficacy — it's about safety, integrity, and trust,' he said. 'The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration, which concealed legitimate safety concerns from the public.' Nixon also said that the move signals a 'shift in federal vaccine funding priorities with better-established safety profiles and transparent data.' The department said Moderna's project does not meet the scientific standards or safety expectations required for continued federal investment, and that the decision reflects broader concerns about mRNA use. It noted that there are three other avian flu contracts under the National Prepandemic Influenza Vaccine Stockpile program. Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades, for flu, Zika, rabies, and cytomegalovirus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The vaccines work by using mRNA, a type of RNA, that is created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make a protein that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. The news comes amid the continued and pervasive spread of H5N1 bird flu, which has killed millions of birds, mammals, and other animals across the U.S. in recent years. In response to infections that resulted in a nationwide egg shortage, the Trump administration's Department of Agriculture included vaccine investments in its $1 billion-dollar plan, allocating up to $100 million for research in that area. 'USDA will be hyper-focused on a targeted and thoughtful strategy for potential new generation vaccines, therapeutics, and other innovative solutions to minimize depopulation of egg laying chickens along with increased bio-surveillance and other innovative solutions targeted at egg laying chickens in and around outbreaks,' it said. Of course, that proposal came before vaccine-skeptic and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., made his own: mass infections. Experts said that was a bad idea. Since then, however, reports of new human cases have stopped. That's been puzzling to experts. To date, 70 people have been infected, most of whom are farm workers. 'We just don't know why there haven't been cases,' Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, told NPR. 'I think we should assume there are infections that are occurring in farmworkers that just aren't being detected.' It may also be tied to seasonality, with cases peaking in the fall and winter as bird migrate. So, the need for a vaccine for humans, such as Moderna's mRNA-108, likely remains. The administration's decision comes as Moderna announced positive interim results from an early-stage trial of the vaccine. "What we learned clearly during the last influenza pandemic is there are only a few companies in the world that make flu vaccines, which means in a pandemic there won't be enough to go around,' Nuzzo said, reacting to the news. 'If the U.S. wants to make sure it can get enough vaccines for every American who wants them during a pandemic, it should invest in multiple types of vaccines instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket." With reporting from The Associated Press
