The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised on Friday to uphold legislation that could lead to a forced sale or outright ban of TikTok in the United States by January 19. The hearing centered on whether the popular short-video app, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, poses a national security risk and violates First Amendment rights.
During nearly two-and-a-half hours of arguments, the justices debated the potential threat of China using TikTok to spy on Americans or manipulate content. Chief Justice John Roberts directly questioned Noel Francisco, a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance, asking, “Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?”
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by TikTok, ByteDance, and app users against a bipartisan law passed last year by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden. The challengers argued that the law infringes on free speech rights protected under the First Amendment.
While some justices raised concerns about free speech implications, the dominant issue appeared to be the national security risks associated with a foreign-owned platform that collects data from 170 million U.S. users—roughly half the population.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the potential long-term dangers of China exploiting data from young TikTok users, asking whether this information could later be used for blackmail, espionage, or recruitment.
Trump and the Incoming Administration
The court’s deliberation comes at a moment of heightened tensions between the United States and China. President-elect Donald Trump, who will take office on January 20, opposes the TikTok ban and has urged the Supreme Court to delay the January 19 deadline for ByteDance to divest from TikTok.
In a statement, Trump argued that postponing the deadline would allow his administration to seek a political resolution to the case. Francisco echoed this sentiment, asking the court to issue a temporary hold on the law, which he said could potentially moot the case under the new administration.
Francisco warned that TikTok would effectively cease operations in the United States without divestiture, saying, “The platform shuts down unless President Trump exercises his authority to extend it.” However, Trump cannot act until after he assumes office on January 20.
Balancing National Security and Free Speech
The justices grappled with striking a balance between safeguarding national security and protecting free speech. Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether the law unfairly targets ByteDance, a foreign company that lacks First Amendment protections. At the same time, she pressed U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who represented the Biden administration, on historical parallels to Cold War-era fears of Soviet influence.
Kagan drew comparisons to the 1950s, asking whether Congress could have forced the American Communist Party to sever ties with the Soviet Union due to concerns about content manipulation. “This is a content-based rationale,” Kagan observed, pointing to concerns over potential propaganda.
Prelogar defended the law, asserting that Chinese government control of TikTok represents a serious national security threat. She argued that the Chinese government could “weaponize TikTok at any time” using its vast data collection capabilities and algorithmic influence.
The Broader Implications
Francisco countered that the law unfairly restricts TikTok’s free speech, particularly its algorithm, which tailors video content to individual users. He likened the situation to hypothetical government intervention in a private U.S. media company, saying, “Congress couldn’t force Jeff Bezos to sell The Washington Post, even if foreign governments tried to manipulate its content.”
Prelogar pushed back, emphasizing that the law falls within a long-standing tradition of barring foreign entities from controlling U.S. communication channels. “The harm lies in the adversary’s capacity to secretly manipulate the platform to advance geopolitical goals,” she stated.
Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Francisco about TikTok’s role in free speech. Francisco responded that the app’s algorithm is a powerful tool for self-expression and engagement, arguing that the law imposes a direct burden on this capability.
As the January 19 deadline looms, the court is considering options, including an administrative stay that would temporarily block the law. Justice Samuel Alito suggested this possibility to allow more time for deliberation.
What’s at Stake
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for tech companies, data privacy, and U.S.-China relations. With TikTok’s future in the balance, the justices must navigate complex questions about security, freedom of expression, and the extent of congressional authority over foreign-owned platforms.
SOURCE: Reuters
Join our WhatsApp channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakDz4u9RZATWh53yC1a
