The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in the United States this Sunday.
“There is no question that TikTok provides more than 170 million Americans with a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, mode of engagement, and source of community,” the court’s unanimous opinion said. “But Congress has determined divestment is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”
TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the company plans to shut down the app for US users on Sunday, the deadline for an extension.
For more than five years, US government officials have tried to ban or force a sale of TikTok, accusing the Chinese-owned company of sharing US user data with the Chinese government and filling feeds with pro-China propaganda. Congress and agencies such as the FBI have not provided much information to the public that corroborates these allegations, but have followed a variety of different methods to ban TikTok.
In 2020, former President Donald Trump first tried to ban TikTok through a failed executive order. Finally, President Joe Biden signed a bill on April 24, 2024 that requires TikTok’s parent company, Byteance, to sell the app to an American owner by January 19 or be removed from US app stores. In a rush to stave off the ban, TikTok and a group of creators quickly filed lawsuits against the Justice Department, arguing that the law, the Americans with Distasteful Apps Act, infringed on their First Amendment rights. violate.
In Friday’s oral arguments, TikTok’s attorney Noel Francisco, and Jeffrey Fisher, who represents the creators, tried to drive home that argument. For the government, Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the law did not violate the free speech rights of the defendants, and instead cut off the application of Bytedance and Chinese influence.
“Without doubt, the remedy Congress and the President have chosen here is dramatic,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. “Whether this law will succeed in achieving its goals, I do not know. A determined foreign adversary can only attempt to replace one lost surveillance application with another. As time passes and threats evolve, less dramatic and more effective solutions may emerge.”
In its opinion, the court cast doubt on TikTok’s central argument that the law violated the company’s free speech rights, writing that the “disputed provisions are facially content neutral.” The judges wrote that the law does not appear to regulate the speech of TikTok or its creators, and instead targets the app and Bytedance’s corporate structure.
“It is not clear that the Act itself directly regulates protected expressive activity, or conduct with an expressive component,” the opinion reads. “And it directly regulates Bytedance Ltd. and TikTok only through the divestment requirements.”
The judges note that their decision should be seen as “narrowly focused” and strictly applicable to TikTok. “TikTok’s scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, coupled with the large amounts of sensitive data the platform collects, warrant differential treatment to address the government’s national security concerns,” the opinion reads.