Getty ImagesThe Supreme Court appears poised to uphold a law that bans TikTok in the US over national security concerns unless its China-based parent company sells the platform before a January 19 deadline. .
The court’s nine judges heard from lawyers and content creators representing TikTok that the ban would violate free speech protections for the platform’s more than 170 million users in the United States.
The US government argued that without sales, TikTok could be used by China for espionage and political manipulation.
The Supreme Court has to pronounce its verdict in a few days. President-elect Donald Trump — who returned to the White House in just over a week — is now arguing against the ban.
The law requires TikTok’s parent company ByteDance to sell it in the US or cease operations on January 19. The company has said it will not sell the short-form video platform.
Congress passed the law with support from both the Democratic and Republican parties — a moment that ended years of concern about the widely popular platform, known for viral videos and traction among teenagers.
The legislation does not prohibit use of the app, but would require tech giants like Apple and Google to stop offering it and stop updates, which analysts believe could kill it over time. will do
TikTok has repeatedly denied any possible influence from the Chinese Communist Party and has said the law violates its users’ First Amendment rights to free speech.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represented the platform, emphasized that a ban on the most popular speech platform for Americans could also open the door to a dangerous form of censorship.
He argued that “the government cannot ban speech to protect us from speech”.
“This law does exactly that from beginning to end.”
A representative of the platform’s creators argued that they should be free to use the publisher of their choice.
Stanford University law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, representing the creators suing the law, told the court Friday that the country has historically faced “ideological campaigns by foreign adversaries.”
But he said that under the First Amendment, mere ideas do not represent a threat to national security.
Justice Department attorney Elizabeth B. Preluger told the court that ByteDance’s ties to the Chinese government made it a national security threat.
He told the court that Beijing could “weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the US”.
During nearly three hours of arguments, the nine justices repeatedly turned to the national security concerns that gave rise to the law in the first place, while also probing questions of free speech.
“Should we ignore the fact that the ultimate parents are actually subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked TikTok’s lawyer Mr Francisco.
Justice Brett Cavanaugh expressed concern about the data the US government collects about its customers and how that data may be used.
He said the threats seemed like “a huge concern for the future of the country”.
Trump’s question
In December, the newly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump Requested the court to postpone the decision. Until he returns to the White House to find a “political solution” to solve the problems.
TikTok’s lawyer told the court on Friday that, as he saw it, the platform would “go dark” on January 19 without intervention.
Ms Preluger, arguing on behalf of the US Justice Department, said “nothing permanent” was to happen that day and there was still time for the sale.
He said that forcing the app to go dark might just be the “shock” ByteDance needs to seriously consider selling.
“This will fundamentally change the landscape of what the bite dance can be considered,” he said, comparing the situation to a “game of chicken” in which the US should not “blink first”.
After the hearing, legal observers predicted that the Supreme Court justices appeared swayed by the government’s concerns.
“Traditionally the Supreme Court has been willing to adjourn somewhat when national security is at stake,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
“I expect the justices will overwhelmingly side with the government,” he added.
Jacob Hubert, an attorney and president of the Liberty Justice Center — which represents BASED Politics, an Internet content creator — said it’s still hard to predict how the court will rule.
But he says the ban would infringe on the freedom of speech of millions of Americans — a point he thinks was effectively made by TikTok’s lawyers.
This is not about the rights of China or the rights of the Communist Party, he said. “This is about the rights of Americans who use TikTok to communicate with other Americans at large.”
More than a hundred people braved freezing conditions to attend the hearing in person in Washington, DC.
Chloe Joy Sexton — one of the TikTok creators named in the suit — said the platform brought “financial freedom” to many creators, including many mothers.
“Banning TikTok will put women, myself included, at real financial risk,” she told reporters. “It would destroy both my business and the community that means so much to me.”
Danielle Ballesteros, a student at UC San Diego, said she had been waiting outside the court since 06:30 local time.
“I think there is no right to ban TikTok,” he told BBC News.
Admitting to using it “probably too much,” she said she considers the app an important source of news for her generation.
TikTok is already banned on government devices in several countries, including the UK. It faces more complete bans in some countries, including India.
Last December, one Three judges upheld the appeals court’s decisionnoting China’s record of working through private companies and said the move was justified as part of a broader effort to counter the national security threat posed by the country.