TikTok’s legal team warned of wider consequences if the popular Chinese-owned app is banned in the US during their oral arguments in the Supreme Cort, Reuters reports.
The app, owned by tech firm ByteDance, is currently set to be banned in the US on Jan. 19 unless it is sold to a different owner not controlled by a “foreign adversary.” This would mean it would become unavailable on platforms like Google and Apple’s app stores. The ban, issued due to national security concerns, received bipartisan support when it was first introduced in April 2024 by the Biden administration.
However, President-elect Donald Trump has requested that the Supreme Court issue an injunction, which would delay the law from taking effect until after his inauguration on Jan. 20. Noel Francisco, a lawyer representing TikTok and ByteDance, argued before the Supreme Court that supporting the law could allow the US government to censor content it didn’t like in the future.
“AMC movie theaters used to be owned by a Chinese company. Under this theory, Congress could order AMC movie theaters to censor any movies that Congress doesn’t like or promote any movies that Congress wanted,” Francisco told the justices. Francisco went on to claim that “everybody manipulates content,” pointing out that many people “think CNN, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times are manipulating their content.”
Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer representing TikTok content creators challenging the law, questioned why TikTok may be subject to harsher restrictions than other Chinese-owned firms operating in the US. “Would a Congress [that is] really worried about these very dramatic risks leave out an e-commerce site like Temu that has 70 million Americans using it?” Fisher asked.
Fisher added that it is “very curious” to single out TikTok and “not other companies with tens of millions of people having their own data taken, you know, in the process of engaging with those websites and equally, if not more, available to Chinese control.”
Justice Elena Kagan, one of eight justices presiding over the case, questioned whether the First Amendment was actually relevant to the case. “The law is only targeted at this foreign corporation, which doesn’t have First Amendment rights,” she said.
Recommended by Our Editors
Not all the legal arguments hinged on content manipulation or free speech grounds. US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the threat of China getting its hands on the data of US citizens is a serious enough reason to ban the app on its own, regardless of the threat of content manipulation by the Chinese government.
“I think that it should be beyond dispute that, of course, our nation has an enormous interest in keeping the sensitive data out of the hands of our foreign adversary,” said Prelogar. “And it should also be beyond dispute that our foreign adversary has an existing capability through its laws and through the way that these companies are integrated to get its hands on that data.”
Get Our Best Stories!
This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links.
By clicking the button, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our
Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy.
You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.
About Will McCurdy
Contributor
