of supreme court The company agreed to hear arguments that a law effectively banning TikTok violates the U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections if the parent company does not sell the popular social media app.
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the case for January 10th. This is nine days before the law targeting the app, which is used by an estimated 170 million Americans, goes into effect.
The law would require TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell or enforce the app. google, appleand other platforms will stop supporting the app in the US.
Congress passed the Foreign Adversary Control Applications Act over concerns that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a national security risk.
On December 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Department of Justice had “found persuasive evidence that the Divestment Act was narrowly designed to protect national security.” The court upheld the law.
The Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will hear a challenge to the law filed jointly by TikTok, ByteDance, and the ByteDance group. TikTok user.
These users include a rancher who makes short videos about agricultural issues, a woman who makes videos about parenting and mental health, and another woman who advocates for sexual assault survivors.
“We are pleased with today’s Supreme Court order, which allows the more than 170 million Americans who use our platform to continue exercising their right to free speech,” said TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes. “We believe the court will rule that banning TikTok is unconstitutional so that we can do so.”
The company says that if the app is banned, U.S. small businesses that use TikTok for marketing will lose more than $1 billion in revenue in the month following the ban, and people who create videos on the app will lose nearly $300 million in revenue. They say they will lose income.
The Supreme Court’s Wednesday announcement that it will hear TikTok’s appeal came two days after the company filed a motion seeking an injunction against the law, which goes into effect next month.
TikTok said in its request that “Congress’s unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and ban them from operating the most important speech platform in this country raises serious constitutional questions and is likely The court will not tolerate this.”
The Supreme Court’s order allowing the appellate hearing requires lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance to file briefs with app users and the Department of Justice, arguing that the law applying to TikTok “violates the First Amendment” to the Constitution. He ordered a discussion on whether to do so. .
However, the court did not issue an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect pending oral arguments on January 10.
The court could rule on the injunction before the law takes effect on January 19, the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Trump met with TikTok CEO Sho Zhi Chu on Monday at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., the same day the company filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court. I asked him to wake me up.
Asked about the possibility of a ban, President Trump told reporters on the same day that he would “look into TikTok.”
“You know, I have a really warm spot for TikTok,” Trump said, adding that the app boosted Trump’s support among young voters during the November election. suggested that.
Jeff Yass, one of President Trump’s key supporters, is co-founder and managing director of Susquehanna International Group, a significant investor in ByteDance.
Attorney for Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, leader of the Republican caucus. filing On Wednesday, the Supreme Court opposed TikTok’s application for an emergency injunction against the law.
“TikTok clearly hopes that the ‘incoming Trump administration’ will be more sympathetic to its plight than President Joe Biden’s administration,” the filing states.
Michael Fragoso, Mr. McConnell’s lawyer, argued that “in other words, the delay is the point” in seeking an injunction.
Fragoso said TikTok’s “First Amendment arguments are worthless and unhealthy.”
“While a forced sale may cause irreparable harm, an injunctive delay would be contrary to the public interest,” Fragoso wrote.
“This is a standard legal drama that occurs at the end of one administration, and the appellants hope that the next administration will grant them a stay of execution,” the attorneys wrote. “This court should tolerate crimes committed by foreign adversaries no more than crimes committed by hardened criminals.”
— CNBC Laura Kolodny Contributed to this article.
