Supreme Court Considers TikTok Ban Friday; national security, free speech arguments are considered

The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments on a US law that requires TikTok to either split from its Chinese parent company ByteDance or be banned from operating in the US. It’s a case that’s being watched intensely and confronting national security concerns protection of freedom of speech for millions of Americans.

The court agreed in December to hold a hearing under urgent procedure on the case, giving him just nine days to decide whether to support TikTok’s request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect on January 19.

However, the court is unlikely to take that long, with judges expected to issue a decision or order within days.

The case comes as TikTok remains one of the most popular social media apps in the US with an estimated 170 million users nationwide.

‘HIGHLY QUALIFIED’: FORMER STATE AGS URGES SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case even more in the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.

Ahead of Friday’s oral arguments, here’s what you need to know about the hearings and how the Supreme Court might act.

TikTok arguments, alleged violations of freedom of speech

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to block or delay it law enforcement Congress passed with bipartisan support in April.

The Act to Protect Americans from Apps Controlled by Foreign Adversaries gave TikTok nine months to split from its Chinese parent company or be removed from US app stores and hosting services. Its owners have repeatedly said they won’t do it. It also gives the president 90 days to delay the ban if TikTok says a sale is underway.

TikTok, ByteDance and several of the app’s users quickly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the law would curtail free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform.

TikTok’s lawyers argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as “an unprecedented attempt to single out the applicants and prohibit them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this country” and noting that lawmakers did not consider less restrictive alternatives to an outright ban. .

“History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, banning speech must be the last resort of Congress,” the lawyers said in a response filed last month with the high court.

Concern for national security

Congress has expressed concern that China, the country, which it considers a foreign adversary of the US, could use TikTok to download vast amounts of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content to users, prompting it to order a sale last spring.

The Biden administration he also echoed those concerns. In a Supreme Court filing, U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar noted that the law focuses solely on Chinese control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose “serious national security threats” to Americans, rather than its content.

Beijing could “covertly manipulate the platform” to advance geopolitical interests in the US, Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has collected for espionage or blackmail.

The administration’s lawyers will discuss it with Congress on Friday did not impose any restrictions on speech— let alone any restrictions based on viewpoint or content — and failed to meet the test of violating free speech under the First Amendment.

The Biden administration also submitted secret evidence to the court under seal that it says “provides additional support” to its conclusion that ByteDance-owned TikTok should be banned.

This evidence has not been made public.

Political pressures

The Supreme Court’s decision on expedited proceedings comes as does President-elect Trump signaled apparent support for the application in recent months.

In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a news conference that his new administration would “take a look at TikTok” and the sale case.

“My heart is warm for TikTok,” Trump told reporters.

Lawyers for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump’s inauguration on January 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act.

However, TikTok’s lawyers have cited the relationship directly in their filings with the Supreme Court. They argued last month that the temporary ban was appropriate “because it will give the new administration time to determine its position, as the president-elect and his advisers have expressed support for rescuing TikTok.”

“There is a strong public interest in this Court having the opportunity to conduct plenary review.

The case also comes amid strong support from some lawmakers in Congress.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., submitted a submission On Thursday, he is calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the ban, arguing that lawmakers lack the evidence necessary to overcome the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment.

In the brief, lawmakers cited the nation’s long reliance on claims of national security as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era restrictions on free speech. Banning TikTok over “speculative concerns” about foreign interference, they argued, “is unconstitutional and contrary to core American values.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

They argued that the US could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while not infringing on First Amendment rights.

Others remained deeply opposed.

Sen. Mitch McConnell called TikTok’s arguments “baseless and baseless” in his own filing, noting that Congress specifically set Jan. 19 as the effective date of the repeal clause because it “very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by assigning it to an administration that is deeply supported the goals of the law.”