The Supreme Court heard arguments Friday in a case challenging a law requiring TikTok to divest from its Chinese parent company or face a ban in the U.S. The justices grappled with the balance between national security concerns and First Amendment protections, with the outcome potentially shaping the future of social media in the country.
The law, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden, mandates a ban on TikTok in the U.S. beginning January 19, unless the platform divests from its Chinese parent, ByteDance. The Court's decision could potentially avert the ban before that date.
During oral arguments, justices scrutinized TikTok's First Amendment defense, probing hypotheticals involving other media outlets with foreign ownership, such as the Washington Post and X (formerly Twitter). Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted the law's focus on foreign control, not content itself. "Congress doesn't care about what's on TikTok," he stated. "They're not saying TikTok has to stop, they're saying the Chinese have to stop controlling TikTok."
TikTok, with over 170 million U.S. users, argues that divestment is practically impossible, threatening the platform's continued operation. Lawyers representing the app contend that the ban is a direct violation of free speech. Concerns center on the potential for Chinese access to user data and manipulation of the platform's algorithms. Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced deep concern about the potential for data exploitation by China, highlighting the possibility of recruiting spies, or blackmailing future government officials.
The court faces the challenge of determining the appropriate level of scrutiny for the law. TikTok argues for "strict scrutiny," the highest standard, requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and narrowly tailored measures. Justices seemed receptive to this argument, particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch. The government, however, contends that "intermediate scrutiny" is sufficient, focusing on the foreign control aspect rather than content.
The government's argument emphasized broad bipartisan support for the legislation. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar highlighted the shared concern about potential Chinese influence over the platform.
While the Biden administration defends the law, President Trump's desire for a delay to negotiate a resolution remains a factor. TikTok's lawyers persistently raised the potential benefit of a temporary delay. The case highlights a confluence of national security concerns, free speech arguments, and political maneuvering as the Supreme Court weighs the future of a globally popular platform.
