Supreme Court justices grilled the lawyer representing TikTok and its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, on Friday, as they debated a law that could force the popular short-video app to either sell or be banned in the United States by January 19. The case raises tensions between free speech rights and national security concerns.
TikTok, ByteDance, and some users of the app have challenged a law passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support in 2024 and signed by President Joe Biden. The administration is defending the law in court. During arguments, the justices questioned the scope of TikTok’s speech rights and the government’s national security concerns. A lower court had previously rejected arguments that the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government interference with free speech.
This case comes amid rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China. Republican Donald Trump, set to begin his second presidential term on January 20, opposes the ban. TikTok’s lawyer, Noel Francisco, told the justices that the app is one of the most widely used platforms in the U.S. and would effectively shut down without a sale by January 19. He argued that the law is aimed at restricting speech, driven by a fear that Americans could be swayed by Chinese misinformation. Francisco contended that such a decision should be left to the American public, not the government, and urged the court to strike down the law.
Francisco also referenced Trump’s position, noting that Trump had called on the Supreme Court to delay the deadline, allowing his incoming administration the chance to resolve the issue politically. Francisco asked the justices to temporarily suspend the law to provide more time for careful consideration.
The Court is weighing the competing issues of free speech and the national security risks associated with a foreign-owned platform that collects extensive data from 170 million U.S. users. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the law specifically targets ByteDance, which, as a foreign corporation, may not have the same First Amendment protections as a domestic company. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns over TikTok’s Chinese ownership and the national security risks, pointing out the potential for Chinese influence over the platform’s content and the data it collects.
The Justice Department has argued that TikTok poses a national security threat, with the possibility that China could use the data for espionage or blackmail, or manipulate the app’s content to align with its interests. TikTok, ByteDance, and the app’s users are appealing the U.S. Court of Appeals’ December 6 ruling that upheld the law.
Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the nature of TikTok’s speech rights in the case, while Francisco defended the app’s use of its algorithm as a form of editorial discretion. He argued that the law’s requirement for ByteDance to divest would restrict TikTok’s ability to operate as it currently does.
Justice Kagan also raised concerns about how the law impacts TikTok’s operations, asking whether TikTok could still use its algorithm under the new law. Francisco reiterated that unless ByteDance complies with the divestiture requirement, TikTok would effectively go dark by January 19.
The Justice Department has argued that the law focuses on TikTok’s foreign ownership, not its speech, and that the app could still operate without Chinese control. Francisco countered by raising a hypothetical scenario in which a foreign government could exert control over a major U.S. media outlet, highlighting the potential First Amendment risks of allowing such government intervention.
As the January 19 deadline approaches, the justices are grappling with the balance between protecting free speech and addressing national security concerns.
