Supreme Court weighs TikTok ban as justices consider national security and free speech arguments

The Supreme Court on Friday appeared poised to uphold a law that would effectively ban TikTok in the United States. The justices heard arguments regarding the national security concerns raised by the app’s ownership by Chinese company ByteDance, while also examining claims that the law violates the First Amendment.

TikTok ban and political implications

The law, enacted with bipartisan support, mandates that ByteDance divest itself of TikTok. If no sale occurs, the platform, which boasts 170 million American users, would be shut down. TikTok has challenged the law, arguing it violates free speech protections, while the Biden administration defends the measure on national security grounds.

President-elect Donald Trump has called for a temporary block on the law, citing the need for a “political resolution” once he takes office.

Key arguments in court

Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to the government’s national security concerns as “very strong,” citing the risk that ByteDance could be compelled by the Chinese government to share user data or manipulate content. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the First Amendment was at stake, emphasizing that the law targets TikTok’s ownership, not the content itself.

TikTok’s attorney Noel Francisco argued the law is unprecedented in targeting a speech platform and warned that it would leave the app “dark” if upheld.

First Amendment concerns

Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised questions about whether the forced divestiture directly implicates free speech, given that TikTok could continue to operate under new ownership. Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the potential impact of content moderation changes on free speech but noted that such concerns might not directly affect ByteDance.

Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok creators, argued that the platform’s unique algorithm allows users to reach large audiences and that creators’ rights to work with a specific publisher are at risk.

National security versus free speech

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defended the law, arguing that it addresses legitimate national security threats without targeting specific speech. She emphasized the Chinese government’s ability to exploit TikTok for data collection and influence operations.

The federal government has the support of 22 states and former national security officials, who argue that ByteDance’s control poses a significant risk.

Broader implications

The case highlights the growing tension between national security and free speech in the digital age. TikTok’s lawyers argue that alternative measures could address security concerns without infringing on constitutional rights. Public interest groups, including the ACLU and Cato Institute, have joined TikTok’s fight, warning of potential overreach.

Next steps

A decision on whether to temporarily block the law or uphold it is expected before the Jan. 19 deadline for its implementation. If upheld, TikTok could be banned or forced to divest its U.S. operations, setting a precedent for how the U.S. government handles foreign-owned platforms in the future.