The US Supreme Court upholds the TikTok ban law

The US Supreme Court a law enforced on Friday, that could result in a ban on TikTok in the United States this Sunday.

“There is no doubt that TikTok provides a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and a source of community for more than 170 million Americans,” the court’s unanimous opinion reads. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address well-founded national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and its relationship with a foreign adversary.”

TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the company reportedly plans to do so close the app for US users, the deadline for an extension is Sunday.

For more than five years, U.S. government officials have tried to ban or force the sale of TikTok, accusing the Chinese company of sharing U.S. user data with the Chinese government and filling feeds with pro-China propaganda. Congress and agencies such as the FBI have not provided the public with much information confirming these allegations, but have pursued various methods to ban TikTok.

Former President Donald Trump tried this for the first time in 2020 on TikTok by a failed executive order. Ultimately, on April 24, 2024, President Joe Biden signed a bill requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app to a U.S. owner by Jan. 19 or be removed from U.S. app stores. In a rush to circumvent the ban, TikTok and a group of creators quickly filed lawsuits against the Justice Department, arguing that the law, the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, violates their First Amendment rights.

In Friday’s oral arguments, TikTok’s attorneys Noel Francisco and Jeffrey Fisher, who represent the creators, tried to make that argument. On behalf of the government, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the law did not violate the defendants’ freedom of expression, and instead isolated the app from ByteDance and Chinese influence.

“Without a doubt, the remedy that Congress and the President have chosen here is dramatic,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. “I don’t know whether this law will succeed in achieving its goals. A determined foreign adversary may simply try to replace one lost surveillance application with another. As time goes on and threats evolve, less dramatic and more effective solutions may emerge.”

In its opinion, the court questions TikTok’s central argument that the law violates the company’s freedom of expression, writing that the “challenged provisions are substantively neutral on their face.” The judges wrote that the law does not appear to regulate the expressions of TikTok or its creators, but instead focuses on the app and ByteDance’s corporate structure.

“It is not clear that the law itself directly regulates protected expressive activity, or conduct with an expressive component,” the opinion reads. “And it regulates Bytedance Ltd. and TikTok only directly through the divestiture requirements.”

The judges note that their decision should be viewed as “narrowly focused” and strictly applicable to TikTok. “TikTok’s size and susceptibility to scrutiny by foreign adversaries, along with the vast amounts of sensitive data the platform collects, warrant differential treatment to address the government’s national security concerns,” the advisory reads.