The Supreme Court is set to decide the fate of TikTok in the US, weighing free speech concerns against national security anxieties. TikTok faces a January 19th shutdown unless the law forcing its sale by its Chinese parent company is struck down.
TikTok says it plans to shut down the social media platform in the U.S. by Jan. 19 unless the Supreme Court strikes down or otherwise delays the effective date of a law aimed at forcing TikTok's sale by its Chinese parent company. Working on a tight deadline, the justices also have before them a plea from President-elect Donald Trump , who has dropped his earlier support for a ban, to give him and his new administration time to reach a “political resolution” and avoid deciding the case.
It's unclear if the court will take the Republican president-elect's views — a highly unusual attempt to influence a case — into account. TikTok and China-based ByteDance, as well as content creators and users, argue the law is a dramatic violation of the Constitution's free speech guarantee. “Rarely if ever has the court confronted a free-speech case that matters to so many people,” lawyers for the users and content creators wrote. Content creators are anxiously awaiting a decision that could upend their livelihoods and are eyeing other platforms.The case represents another example of the court being asked to rule about a medium with which the justices have acknowledged they have little familiarity or expertise, though they often weigh in on meaty issues involving restrictions on speech. The Biden administration, defending the law that President Joe Biden signed in April after it was approved by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress, contends that “no one can seriously dispute that (China's) control of TikTok through ByteDance represents a grave threat to national security.” Officials say Chinese authorities can compel ByteDance to hand over information on TikTok’s U.S. patrons or use the platform to spread or suppress information. But the government “concedes that it has no evidence China has ever attempted to do so,” TikTok told the justices, adding that limits on speech should not be sustained when they stem from fears that are predicated on future risks. In December, a panel of three appellate judges, two appointed by Republicans and one by a Democrat, unanimously upheld the law and rejected the First Amendment speech claims. Adding to the tension, the court is hearing arguments just nine days before the law is supposed to take effect and 10 days before a new administration takes office. In language typically seen in a campaign ad rather than a legal brief, lawyers for Trump have called on the court to temporarily prevent the TikTok ban from going into effect but refrain from a definitive resolution. President-elect Donald Trump submitted an amicus brief with the Supreme Court asking it to pause implementation of a law that would ban TikTok in the United States on January 19 if the company is not sold by its Chinese parent company. “President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government — concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged,” D. John Sauer, Trump’s choice to be his administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote in a legal brief filed with the court. Trump took no position on the underlying merits of the case, Sauer wrote. Trump's campaign team used TikTok to connect with younger voters, especially male voters, and Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, in December. He has 14.7 million followers on TikTok. The justices have set aside two hours for arguments, and the session likely will extend well beyond that. Three highly experienced Supreme Court lawyers will be making arguments. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar will present the Biden administration's defense of the law, while Trump’s solicitor general in his first administration, Noel Francisco, will argue on behalf of TikTok and ByteDance. Stanford Law professor Jeffrey Fisher, representing content creators and users, will be making his 50th high court argument. If the law takes effect, Trump's Justice Department will be charged with enforcing it. Lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance have argued that the new administration could seek to mitigate the law’s most severe consequences. But they also said that a shutdown of just a month would cause TikTok to lose about one-third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue. As it weighs the case, the court will have to decide what level of review it applies to the law. Under the most searching review, strict scrutiny, laws almost always fail. But two judges on the appellate court that upheld the law said it would be the rare exception that could withstand strict scrutiny. TikTok, the app's users and many briefs supporting them urge the court to apply strict scrutiny to strike down the law. But the Democratic administration and some of its supporters cite restrictions on foreign ownership of radio stations and other sectors of the economy to justify the effort to counter Chinese influence in the TikTok ban
Tiktok Supreme Court National Security Free Speech China Bytedance Donald Trump Joe Biden Social Media
United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court to Decide TikTok's Fate in USThe US Supreme Court will hear TikTok's appeal against a divest-or-ban law that could lead to the app's ban in the US. The law requires TikTok to divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, by January 19, or face a ban. TikTok is seeking to overturn the law, while the Department of Justice argues it poses national security risks due to its Chinese ownership.
Read more »
TikTok's Fate in US Hangs in Supreme Court BalanceThe Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of TikTok in the United States, weighing a law that could force its Chinese owners to sell the app or face a ban. The law, passed in April 2024, cites national security concerns over TikTok's foreign ownership and potential influence on American users. While TikTok claims it poses no threat and First Amendment rights are at stake, the Biden Administration argues the government has the authority to regulate foreign-owned entities that may jeopardize national security. The case, expedited by the Supreme Court, will likely have significant implications for both free speech and social media regulation in the digital age.
Read more »
Supreme Court to Weigh TikTok Ban's Impact on Free SpeechThe Supreme Court will hear arguments on January 10th regarding the constitutionality of a law that could ban TikTok in the US. The law, passed with bipartisan support, is set to take effect on January 19th, but TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, have appealed to the court, arguing that it violates First Amendment rights. The case raises complex questions about balancing national security concerns with free speech protections in the context of social media.
Read more »
Supreme Court to Weigh TikTok Ban LawThe Supreme Court will hear arguments on January 10th about whether a law banning TikTok in the US violates the First Amendment.
Read more »
Massachusetts Supreme Court to Weigh Public Access to Juvenile Court Records in Harmony Montgomery CaseThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments Monday in a case about whether records from the custody hearings for Harmony Montgomery, a 5-year-old girl who was slain in 2019, should be made public. Filmmaker Bill Lichtenstein, who is producing a documentary on the Massachusetts child protection and juvenile court systems, appealed to the high court seeking access to the records. He hopes they will shed light on why Harmony's father was granted custody despite his violent criminal history.
Read more »
TikTok asks Supreme Court for emergency order to block US ban unless it is soldLawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance urged the justices to step in before the law’s January 19 deadline.
Read more »