A judge on Jan. 28 temporarily blocked a recently announced Trump administration policy targeting the roughly 5,600 lawful refugees in Minnesota who are awaiting green cards. In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis said federal agents likely violated multiple federal statutes by arresting some of these refugees to subject them to additional vetting. Tunheim issued a temporary restraining order blocking federal agents from arresting lawful refugees in Minnesota who have not been charged with immigration violations. The judge said the ruling would remain in place until he can hear additional legal arguments by civil rights groups challenging the policy. The Trump administration sent thousands of immigration agents to Minneapolis and Saint Paul beginning in December in what officials described as an operation to enforce immigration laws and stop fraud. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the architect of President Donald Trump's immigration agenda, criticized Tunheim's ruling on X, saying: "The judicial sabotage of democracy is unending." The order was a major setback to "Operation PARRIS," a program announced by the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month and billed as "a sweeping initiative reexamining thousands of refugee cases through new background checks." Tunheim said his order does not affect DHS's ability to reexamine refugee applicants and that it "does not impact DHS’s lawful enforcement of immigration laws." Tunheim said the refugees impacted by his order are carefully vetted individuals who "have a right not to be subjected to the terror of being arrested and detained without warrants or cause." Kimberly Grano, a lawyer at the International Refugee Assistance Project, which is involved in the litigation, said in a press release the order will put in place "desperately-needed guardrails" on federal agents.

TikTok agreed to settle a landmark lawsuit on social media addiction on Jan. 27, according to one of the plaintiff's lawyers, the same day the trial was due to start against two remaining companies. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. TikTok is one of four companies, including Meta, Snap and YouTube, which is a unit of Alphabet-owned Google, facing allegations that their platforms are fueling a youth mental health crisis. The trial against Meta and YouTube was scheduled to begin with jury selection on Jan. 27 in California Superior Court in Los Angeles. The case involves a 19-year-old from California, identified as K.G.M., who said she became addicted to the companies' platforms at a young age because of their attention-grabbing design, according to court filings. She blames her depression and suicidal thoughts on the apps she used and is seeking to hold the companies that designed them responsible. K.G.M. "reached an agreement in principle to settle her case" with TikTok, said Joseph VanZandt, a lawyer for K.G.M. TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for more details about the settlement. Snap settled with K.G.M. on Jan. 20. A Snap spokesperson and plaintiff’s attorneys declined to provide details about that agreement. K.G.M.’s case is one of three scheduled test cases, known as bellwether trials, chosen from hundreds of related lawsuits accusing the platforms of harming youth. The outcome of her lawsuit could help determine how the other cases are handled. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify as part of the trial.

Google agreed to pay $68 million to settle a lawsuit claiming that its voice-activated assistant spied inappropriately on smartphone users, violating their privacy.   A preliminary class action settlement was filed on Jan. 23 in the San Jose, California federal court, and requires approval by U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Smartphone users accused Google, a unit of Alphabet, of illegally recording and disseminating private conversations after Google Assistant was triggered, in order to send them targeted advertising. Google Assistant is designed to react when people use "hot words" such as "Hey Google" or "Okay Google," similar to Apple's Siri. Users objected to receiving ads after Google Assistant misperceived what they said as hot words, known as "false accepts." Apple reached a similar $95 million settlement with smartphone users in December 2024. Google denied wrongdoing, but settled to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of litigation, court papers show. The Mountain View, California-based company declined to comment on Jan. 26. The settlement covers people who bought Google devices or were subjected to false accepts since May 18, 2016, court papers show. Lawyers for plaintiffs may seek up to one-third of the settlement fund, or about $22.7 million, for legal fees.