The Supreme Court appeared inclined on Friday to support legislation that could result in a ban on TikTok in the United States starting January 19 unless the widely used application is divested from its parent company, ByteDance, which is based in China.
During a significant debate weighing free speech against national security issues, the justices expressed a belief that the potential threat to national security stemming from the app’s ties to China outweighed the concerns associated with limiting the free speech of TikTok and its 170 million American users.
At the outset of arguments that extended over two and a half hours, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized his main worry regarding TikTok being owned by ByteDance, which he highlighted must comply with Chinese governmental intelligence operations.
If the law remains intact, as it was passed with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by President Biden in April, TikTok would be forced to cease operations by January 19, according to attorney Noel Francisco, representing TikTok in front of the court.
He argued for a temporary halt to this ruling, suggesting that the landscape might change after Donald Trump assumes the presidency on January 20. He noted Trump, who has a considerable following on TikTok, has urged that the deadline be postponed to allow negotiations for a “political resolution.” Francisco had previously served as Trump’s solicitor general.
Yet, it was uncertain if any other justices would join Gorsuch in favoring TikTok, with only Justice Neil Gorsuch seeming supportive of the idea that the ban could infringe on the Constitution.
Gorsuch criticized the Biden administration’s defense of the law as “paternalistic,” stating that TikTok had expressed willingness to warn users about potential manipulation by the Chinese government.
He raised the question, “Isn’t the common response to undesirable speech to encourage alternative voices?” in reference to the Solicitor General’s arguments.
In response, Prelogar asserted that a warning would not adequately address the challenges posed by the spread of misinformation.
Francisco and attorney Jeffrey Fisher, who represents TikTok users and content creators, consistently urged the court to consider the First Amendment implications for TikTok, arguing that the law’s enforcement could jeopardize their livelihoods.
In contrast to the relatively moderate inquiries directed at Prelogar, they faced skepticism from nearly every justice, apart from Gorsuch.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced significant concern about the potential for China to access vast amounts of personal information from American individuals, particularly young users who are particularly fond of TikTok.
He remarked, “That’s a major concern for the nation’s future,” referring to the age group that includes his daughters.
Roberts dismissed Fisher’s assertion that the ban would infringe upon the free speech rights of TikTok users by stating, “Congress appreciates the value of expression but is not comfortable with a foreign adversary amassing information on 170 million TikTok users.”
The Supreme Court is projected to make a decision soon, likely before the January 19 deadline.
Content creators and small business operators relying on TikTok are anxiously awaiting a ruling.
Skip Chapman, co-owner of KAFX Body in New Jersey, expressed concern, stating that “there’s really no alternative to this app,” noting that TikTok accounts for more than 80% of his sales, which cannot be matched on Amazon or other platforms.
New Hampshire-based TikTok creator and licensed esthetician Lee Zavorskas shared her distress over the situation, admitting to feeling overwhelmed by the court proceedings and instead focusing on developing her YouTube channel.
ByteDance has firmly stated it will not sell TikTok, with Francisco mentioning that a sale may not even be feasible under the new legal requirements.
However, some investors, including former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have shown interest in the platform. McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative recently proposed acquiring TikTok’s U.S. assets, though the specifics of the offer remain confidential.
Should TikTok fail to be sold to an authorized buyer, the legislation would prohibit major app stores like those of Apple and Google from offering the app, while also barring internet services from hosting TikTok.
Current users would still access TikTok, but new downloads would be disabled, and existing users would lose the ability to receive updates, leading to a nonfunctional app as stated by the Justice Department in court documents.
Prelogar indicated that a potential sale could still permit TikTok to resume operations, referencing the swift sale of Twitter to Elon Musk, which was completed in six months.
TikTok has been under scrutiny since 2020 about possible ownership changes to address U.S. national security fears.
The recent legislation marks the culmination of ongoing discussions in Washington regarding TikTok, which is regarded as a national security threat due to its Chinese affiliations.
U.S. authorities have voiced concerns that the extensive user data collected by TikTok could be accessed by the Chinese government. They worry that the algorithm, which determines the content presented to users, might be subject to manipulation by Chinese officials,
which could lead ByteDance to adjust platform content in a covert manner.
TikTok has consistently denied allegations of being a puppet for the Chinese government and had engaged with the Biden administration in attempts to address U.S. data privacy concerns over the past two years.
The company has claimed that the Biden administration abandoned discussions after it submitted a draft agreement in August 2022, a claim the Justice Department disputes, stating the proposal was inadequate and did not resolve the ties between TikTok and China.
A panel of three judges, with two Republican and one Democratic appointee, unanimously upheld the law in December, prompting a swift appeal from TikTok to the Supreme Court.