Latest news with #Kagan
The Star
14 hours ago
- Entertainment
- The Star
Upcoming KL fest to champion green connectors, walkability
Maimunah (middle), flanked by Kagan on her right and Campuzano, hits the drum to launch KLPF 2025. With them are (from left) DBKL executive directors Nor Azlina, Ismadi, Mohamad and Landscape and Recreation Development Department director Puteri Khairul Fathiah Fahimudin. The second Kuala Lumpur Park Festivals 2025 (KLPF), aimed at raising awareness of maintaining green spaces, will advocate the vital role of green connectors in urban development. The festival, from Oct 17 to 26, underscores the city's commitment to enhancing sustainability and liveability by integrating its green assets. Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Seri Maimunah Mohd Sharif said the event was part of wider efforts to promote a healthy city and introduce Kuala Lumpur City Hall's (DBKL) Green Connectors initiative. 'For example, Kuala Lumpur residents can walk from Taman Botani Perdana to Dataran Merdeka and to Bukit Bintang. 'Similarly, visitors can explore the surrounding attractions in Taman Tasik Titiwangsa like Istana Budaya and National Art Gallery. 'Ultimately, it is my vision for us to conserve and connect our green spaces through the KL Central Park Conservancy flagship project to improve walkability in the city,' she said during the KLPF 2025 launch at Taman Tasik Titiwangsa. Organised by DBKL, the week-long festival will be held at Taman Tasik Titiwangsa. Visitors to KLPF 2025 will get to see the 'Gendang dan Tari' show. Maimunah said several events would take place at The Exchange TRX to build momentum leading up to the festival. She added that, 'There will be pop-up gardens for visitors, and I encourage Kuala Lumpur residents to join.' DBKL is expecting 250,000 visitors for the Taman Tasik Titiwangsa event. The festival showcases three main segments – Mystical Titiwangsa, Genta Festival and Asean Halal Food Festival 2025. For Mystical Titiwangsa (an indoor exhibit), visitors will embark on a journey through curated themed gardens based on local folklore such as Puteri Gunung Ledang, Hang Tuah and Si Tanggang. Guests can find music and dance at Genta Festival, short for 'Gendang dan Tari' (drum and dance), while the Asean Halal Food Festival 2025 will feature delicacies from all 10 Asean countries. Also present at the launch were US Ambassador to Malaysia Edgard D. Kagan, Mexican Ambassador Luis Javier Campuzano, Turkmenistan Ambassador Muhammetryyaz Mashalov, Kingdom of Bahrain Ambassador Dr Waleed Khalifa Al Manea as well as DBKL executive directors Ismadi Sakirin (Socio-economic Development), Mohamad Hamim (Project Management) and Nor Azlina Mohd Saad (Management). Separately, DBKL urged private companies, government- linked companies (GLCs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to contribute financially through the Endowment Fund for the upcoming KLPF 2025. This fund will provide ongoing support for various social, educational and community initiatives, including establishing Taman Botani Perdana as a research and botanical institution.
The Hill
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Liberal justices slam majority decision on porn age verification as ‘at war with itself'
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented from the majority's decision Friday to uphold a Texas law requiring porn websites to verify user ages, slamming the opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas as 'at war with itself.' The court's six conservative justices ruled that the Texas law, which seeks to block children from accessing adult content online, did not violate the First Amendment. But the Democratic-appointed justices pushed back, arguing First Amendment interests are still at risk for adults with this law. 'The State should be foreclosed from restricting adults' access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary,' wrote Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'The majority's opinion concluding to the contrary is, to be frank, confused,' she continued. 'The opinion, to start with, is at war with itself.' Kagan acknowledged the dangers of sexually explicit content for children, but said this does not outweigh free speech concerns, warning the law may unintentionally impede adults' access to sexual content. 'So adults have a constitutional right to view the very same speech that a state may prohibit for children,' Kagan wrote. 'And it is a fact of life — and also of law — that adults and children do not live in hermetically sealed boxes.' She raised whether Texas is doing the 'best' it can to avoid restricting adults' free speech, and, if so, suggested it should pass the strict scrutiny test. 'But what if Texas could do better — what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults' constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech [the Texas law] covers?' she asked. The plaintiff, Free Speech Coalition, a trade association representing the adult entertainment, echoed this sentiment, arguing the law violates the First Amendment by creating barriers for adults to access the websites. At the heart of the case was whether the age verification requirement needed to clear a higher level of scrutiny associated with the First Amendment, known as strict scrutiny. The majority found that a lower standard applied, which the law 'readily survives,' Thomas wrote. Kagan said states should not be allowed to restrict adults' access to protected speech if it is not necessary. 'The majority is not shy about why it has adopted these special-for-the-occasion, difficult-to-decipher rules,' she wrote. 'It thinks they are needed to get to what it considers the right result: giving Texas permission to enforce its statute.' 'But Texas should not receive that permission if it can achieve its goal as to minors while interfering less with the speech choices of adults,' she continued, adding, 'For that reason, the majority's analysis is as unnecessary as it is unfaithful to the law.' Friday's decision could make it easier for other states' porn age verification laws to withstand challenges. As technology increases minors' access, nearly 25 states in the U.S. have passed similar measures related to adult content.
NBC News
a day ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court upholds phone and internet subsidy program for underserved areas
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to a Federal Communications Commission program that subsidizes phone and internet services in underserved parts of the country. In a decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled that Congress did not exceed its authority when it enacted a 1996 law that set up the Universal Service Fund, which requires telecommunications services to submit payments to subsidize 'universal service.' The court also said the FCC could delegate its authority to a private corporation called the Universal Service Administrative Company to administer the fund. "Nothing in these arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution," Kagan wrote. The justices were divided 6-3, with three conservative justices dissenting. The fees, generally passed on to customers, raise billions of dollars a year that are spent on providing phone and internet services, including for schools, libraries and hospitals. Challengers said the program violates the 'nondelegation doctrine,' a theory embraced by conservatives that says Congress has limited powers to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch. Lower courts were divided over the issue, with both the FCC and a coalition led by Consumers' Research, a conservative group, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. Opponents call the Universal Service Fund fee a form of tax and say only elected officials, not bureaucrats, have the power to impose it. The 1996 law is particularly problematic because it does not tell the FCC how much money it can raise via the program, the challengers' lawyers argued. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has undercut the authority of government agencies in a series of recent decisions. That had led some commentators to wonder if it would use the FCC case to turbocharge the nondelegation doctrine. The current court has not yet embraced the nondelegation doctrine, although in different contexts, a majority of justices have indicated support for it. If the court did reinvigorate the idea, agencies would face new limits on their powers to implement existing laws and programs that seek to enforce open-ended laws enacted by Congress. Although the Trump administration has sought to weaken federal agencies by firing thousands of workers, its lawyers defended the FCC in the case. The administration took over the case from the Biden administration, which had appealed the case to the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump has tried to expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of Congress and the judiciary, so his administration's position in the case is consistent with that approach.
Business Wire
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Wire
Corner Therapeutics to Present New Preclinical and Human Data on mRNA-Encoded Immunotherapies at FOCiS 2025
WATERTOWN, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Corner Therapeutics, an immunotherapy company pioneering novel approaches to cancer and infection, today announced that its Distinguished Scientist, Scientific Co-founder and Board Member, Professor Jonathan Kagan, Ph.D., will deliver an invited oral presentation at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies (FOCiS 2025), taking place from June 24 to 27 in Boston, MA. Jonathan Kagan, Scientific Cofounder at Corner Therapeutics, will present new preclinical and human data demonstrating the ability of Corner's novel mRNA-encoded immunotherapies to drive durable tissue-resident T cell responses by STING pathway agonism. Share On June 24, as part of the Member Society Symposia: Innate Immunotherapy in Cancer: Bridging Fundamental Mechanisms and Clinical Trials, Professor Kagan will present new preclinical and human data demonstrating the ability of Corner's novel mRNA-encoded immunotherapies to drive durable tissue-resident T cell responses through STING pathway agonism. The presentation will focus on applications in cancer vaccines. Presentation Details Title: mRNA-encoded Adjuvant Enzymes Unlock Anti-tumor T-cell Immunity Date/Time: June 24, 4:30-5pm ET Location: Boston Marriott Copley Place, Arlington meeting room, Boston, MA Professor Kagan co-founded Corner Therapeutics in 2019 with the goal of developing immunotherapies through the exquisite control of the innate immune system. Based on Professor Kagan's research, Corner's mRNA-based and dendritic cell hyperactivating platforms instruct the innate immune system to engineer its own long-lived, disease-fighting T cells. Last year, Corner launched its $54 million Series A investment round. The company now partners with leading biopharma companies and nonprofits including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to fully realize the protective promise of both therapeutic and preventative vaccines. About Corner Therapeutics, Inc. Corner Therapeutics is the immunotherapy company unlocking lifelong protection from cancer and infectious diseases. Using its novel dendritic cell stimuli platforms, Corner teaches the immune system to engineer its own long-lived, disease-fighting T cells. Corner's technology solves the 'last mile' problem that has kept researchers from achieving the holy grails of medicine: therapeutic cancer and infectious disease vaccines that provide life-long immunity. With its antigen-agnostic platform, Corner is revolutionizing care for an exceptionally wide range of cancers and infectious diseases. The company has received funding from leading organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and partners with prominent biopharma companies to fully realize the protective promise of both therapeutic and preventative vaccines. For more information about Corner Therapeutics, visit
CBS News
5 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Supreme Court lets Trump administration resume deportations to third countries without notice for now
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a lower court order that prevented the Trump administration from deporting migrants to countries that are not their places of origin without first giving them the chance to raise fears of torture, persecution or death. The order from the high court is a victory for the Trump administration, which has faced recent setbacks from the justices in its efforts to swiftly deport migrants as part of its crackdown on immigration. The Supreme Court's order clears the way for the Trump administration to resume deportations to third countries while legal proceedings continue. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision Monday regarding third country removals. In a dissenting opinion, Sotomayor accused the federal government of "flagrantly unlawful conduct" and called the majority's decision to intervene at this stage in the case "inexcusable." "The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote, joined by Kagan and Jackson. Sotomayor said that the court is "rewarding lawlessness" with a decision that will undermine the foundational principle of due process. "Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled," Sotomayor said. "That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." The Supreme Court's latest order came in a court fight over the Trump administration's efforts to swiftly deport some migrants to third countries, or countries other than the ones designated on an order of removal. As part of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda and plans for mass deportations, his administration has approached nations like Costa Rica, Panama and Rwanda about accepting migrants who are not their citizens. The administration has also already entered into an arrangement with the government of El Salvador to detain Venezuelan migrants who it claims are gang members, though a "60 Minutes" investigation found most have no apparent criminal records. The migrants have been confined at the notorious Salvadoran prison known as CECOT, often under a 1798 wartime law. The Supreme Court previously said in a pair of decisions arising from other emergency appeals that migrants facing deportation under that wartime law must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge their removals in court. Four migrants from Latin America filed a broader lawsuit in March on behalf of a nationwide class of all people potentially subject to third-country removals and argued they are entitled to notice and an opportunity to contest their removals on the grounds they fear persecution, torture and death. In the weeks after the suit was filed, administration officials were engaged in a simmering showdown with a Boston-based federal judge, who in April found that the government had violated migrants' due process rights and blocked immigration authorities from quickly removing them to third countries unless certain steps are first taken. The judge, Brian Murphy, said the government first had to give the affected migrants written notice of the third country to which they may be deported and a "meaningful opportunity" to raise fears of torture, persecution or death in that country. Third-country deportations challenged in court Since Murphy issued his nationwide injunction in April, immigration lawyers have notified him that a group of migrants from Laos, Vietnam and the Philippines were being prepared to be deported to Libya and Saudi Arabia, though the deportation flights do not appear to have happened. Murphy then concluded last month that the Trump administration violated his order when it attempted to swiftly deport a group of men with criminal histories to war-torn South Sudan with less than 24 hours notice and no chance for them to raise fear-based claims. South Sudan endured a bloody years-long civil war shortly after gaining independence in 2011, and the United Nations warns violence has escalated in recent months. The State Department has warned Americans not to travel to the country due to "crime, kidnapping and armed conflict. Murphy halted the deportations to South Sudan, and the men are being held at a U.S. naval base in nearby Djibouti, a small country on the Horn of Africa. The judge said federal immigration authorities must give six of the deportees "reasonable fear" interviews to determine whether they are at risk of persecution or torture. Murphy left it up to the Department of Homeland Security to either conduct the interviews within the U.S. or abroad, but said the department had to retain "custody and control" over the men. A U.S. immigration official revealed in a June 4 filing that the migrants are being held in a conference room in a converted shipping container on the naval base and are guarded by 11 ICE officers. The official, Mellissa Harper, described in an affidavit the conditions facing the migrants and the immigration authorities, who she said have felt ill since arriving in Djibouti, which uses burn pits to dispose of trash and human waste. The ICE officers were unable to take anti-malaria medication for up to 72 hours before arriving in Djibouti and have experienced coughing, difficulty breathing, fever and achy joint, Harper said. They were also warned by defense officials that they were in "imminent danger" of rocket attacks from terrorist groups in Yemen, and the ICE officers do not have body armor or other gear to put on in case of an attack, she said. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court last month to pause Murphy's injunction, which Solicitor General D. John Sauer said was thwarting the administration's attempts to deport what it describes as the "worst of the worst illegal aliens." "Those judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process," he wrote in a filing. "In addition to usurping the executive's authority over immigration policy, the injunction disrupts sensitive diplomatic, foreign-policy, and national-security efforts." He said Murphy's injunction created a "diplomatic and logistical morass." But lawyers for the migrants at risk of deportation to third countries said the criteria laid out in the lower court's injunction are mandated by federal law and regulations, U.S. treaty obligations and the Constitution. The order, they said, "simply requires defendants to comply with the law when carrying them out." The immigration lawyers said over the past weeks, the Trump administration "repeatedly sought to remove people as a punitive measure, to some of the most dangerous places on the planet, and with only hours' notice." Mr. Trump has overseen a sweeping immigration crackdown since he returned to the White House for a second term. The president's administration has since moved to end a Temporary Protected Status program that shielded 350,000 Venezuelan migrants from the threat of deportation and to revoke the legal status of roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The Supreme Court has allowed him to move forward with terminating both of those programs while legal proceedings continue. Mr. Trump also has sought to use the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans who his administration claims are members of the gang Tren de Aragua, though several courts have ruled that the president cannot use the law to detain or remove certain migrants.
