On Friday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a US law that would require TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or ban it from operating in the United States. It is a closely watched case that raises national security concerns against her. Protecting freedom of expression For millions of Americans.
The court agreed in December To hold an urgent hearing In this case, the order was given just nine days to decide whether to uphold 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.
'Very qualified': Former state aides urge Senate to confirm Bondi to lead Justice Department
President-elect Trump has also expressed his support for the app, putting the issue 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.
The TikTok logo is displayed on a smartphone in Suqian, Jiangsu Province, China. (CFOTO/SEPA USA)
TikTok Arguments, and Alleged Free Speech Violations
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to block or delay Law enforcement Congress passed it with bipartisan support in April.
The Protecting Americans from Apps Controlled by Foreign Adversaries Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or remove it from US app stores and hosting services. The owners have repeatedly said they won't do it. It also gives the president a 90-day window to postpone the ban if TikTok says the divestment process is underway.
TikTok, ByteDance and several of the app's users quickly filed a lawsuit to block the ban in May, arguing that the legislation would suppress the freedom of expression of millions of Americans who use the platform.
TikTok's lawyers argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, calling it “an unprecedented attempt to discriminate and prevent applicants from operating one of this nation's most important platforms for expression” and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban.
“History and precedent teach us that even when national security is at stake, banning speech should be Congress’s last resort,” the lawyers said in a response brief filed last month with the Supreme Court.
President-elect Trump is pictured in front of the TikTok logo. (Getty Images)
National security concerns
Congress has He pointed to concerns that China A country it considers a foreign adversary of the United States can use TikTok to download troves of user data and push some Chinese government-backed content to users, leading it to order divestment last spring.
the Biden administration She also echoed these concerns. In a filing to the Supreme Court, US Attorney Elizabeth Prelogar noted that the law focuses only on China's control over the app, which the Biden administration said could pose “serious national security threats” to Americans, rather than its content.
Prelogar noted that Beijing could “covertly manipulate the platform” to advance US geopolitical interests, or use the vast amount of user data it has collected for either espionage or blackmail.
Elizabeth Prelogar, US Attorney General, testifies before her confirmation hearing to the US Senate Judiciary Committee. (Senate/Handout via Reuters)
Administration lawyers will argue Friday that Congress He imposed no restrictions on speech— not to mention any restrictions based on viewpoint or content — and fails to meet the test for free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The Biden administration also presented secret evidence to the court, which it claimed “further supports” its conclusion that ByteDance-owned TikTok should be banned.
This evidence has not been made public.
President-elect Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, in Palm Beach, Florida. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Political pressures
The Supreme Court's decision comes to expedite the case, as President-elect Trump did He indicated clear support Application in recent months.
In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference that his next administration would “take a look at TikTok” and the divestiture issue.
“I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump told reporters.
The president-elect's lawyers also filed a memorandum with the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration on January 20.
The brief did not indicate how Trump might act.
However, TikTok's lawyers have pointed out this relationship directly in their filings with the Supreme Court. Last month, they argued that a temporary injunction was appropriate “because it would 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 public review.
US Supreme Court (AP Photo/Maryam Zohaib, File)
The issue also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky; Senator Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts; Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, Provide a summary He on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to overturn the ban, arguing that lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections afforded under the First Amendment.
In the brief, the lawmakers pointed to the country's long-standing reliance on national security claims as a way to justify censorship, citing examples of 18th- and 20th-century sedition laws and Cold War-era restrictions on free speech. They argued that banning TikTok over “speculative concerns” about foreign interference is “unconstitutional and inconsistent with fundamental American values.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
They argued that the United States could adopt less stringent measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while not violating First Amendment rights.
Others remained strongly opposed.
Senator Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok's arguments as “unwarranted and unsound” in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the January 19 date for the divestiture provision to take effect because it “clearly removes any potential political uncertainty in implementation.” The law was subjected to an administration that was very supportive of the objectives of the bill.”
