Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Friday on a US law that requires TikTok to divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the US. It’s a closely watched case that pits national security concerns against protection of freedom of expression for millions of Americans.
The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to grant TikTok’s request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect on January 19.
However, the court is unlikely to take that long, with judges expected to issue a ruling or order within days.
The case comes as TikTok remains one of the most popular social media apps in the United States with an estimated 170 million users nationwide.
‘HIGHLY QUALIFIED’: FORMER STATE AGS URGES SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO HEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
President-elect Trump has also shown his support for the application, putting the case even more in the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.
Ahead of Friday’s oral arguments, here’s what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act.
A TikTok logo is displayed on a smartphone in Suqian, Jiangsu Province, China. (CFOTO/Sipa USA)
TikTok arguments, alleged violations of freedom of expression
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are asking the court to block or delay application of a law Congress passed with bipartisan support in April.
The Protecting Americans from Apps Controlled by Foreign Adversaries Act gave TikTok nine months to divest from its Chinese parent company or withdraw from US app stores and hosting services. Its owners have repeatedly said they won’t. It also gives the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestment is underway.
TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app quickly sued to block the ban in May, arguing that the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform.
TikTok’s lawyers argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an “unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and prohibit them from operating one of this nation’s largest speech platforms.” and noted that lawmakers did not consider less restrictive alternatives by comparison. to an absolute ban.
“History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, bans on speech should be Congress’ last resort,” the lawyers said in a response brief filed last month in the high court
President-elect Trump appears in front of the TikTok logo. (Getty Images)
National security concerns
Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the US, could use TikTok to download large amounts of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content to users, prompting it to order the divestment last spring.
The Biden administration these concerns were also echoed. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar noted that the law focuses solely on China’s control of enforcement, which the Biden administration argued could mean “serious threats to national security” to Americans, rather than its content.
Beijing could “covertly manipulate the platform” to advance geopolitical interests in the US, Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for espionage or blackmail.
Elizabeth Prelogar, the US Attorney General, testifies before the US Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing. (Senate/Handout via Reuters)
Administration lawyers will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restriction based on viewpoint or content — and did not meet the test for violations of free speech under the First Amendment.
The Biden administration also submitted sealed evidence to the court that it argued “further supports” its conclusion that ByteDance-owned TikTok should be banned.
This evidence has not been released to the public.
President-elect Trump speaks during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025, in Palm Beach, Florida. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Political pressures
The Supreme Court’s decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump apparent support marked for the application in recent months.
In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a news conference that his incoming administration “will take a look at TikTok” and the case of divestment.
“I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump told reporters.
Lawyers for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to delay any decision on the case until after Trump’s inauguration on January 20.
The document did not indicate how Trump might act.
Still, TikTok’s lawyers have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued that an interim measure is appropriate “because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the president-elect and his advisers have expressed support for saving TikTok.
“There is a strong public interest in this Court having the opportunity to exercise plenary review.
The US Supreme Court (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)
The case also comes amid strong support from some lawmakers in Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Representative Ro Khanna, D-Calif., submitted a brief On Thursday, he urged the Supreme Court to overturn the ban, arguing that lawmakers don’t have enough evidence to offset free speech protections granted under the First Amendment.
In the brief, the lawmakers referenced the nation’s long-standing reliance on claims of national security as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and restrictions on freedom of expression during the Cold War. Banning TikTok because of “speculative concerns” about foreign interference, they argued, is “unconstitutional and contradicts core American values.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
They argued that the United States could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns raised by the application without infringing on First Amendment rights.
Others remained deeply opposed.
Senator Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok’s arguments as “unfair and unsound” in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the January 19 date for the divestment clause to take effect, as ” It very clearly eliminates any potential political uncertainty in the implementation of the law by combining it with an administration that deeply supported the goals of the bill.”
