Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, threatens app’s existence in US: NPR

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the federal government can legally shut down TikTok in the United States, dealing a stunning blow to the viral video app used by about half of Americans.

Last April, President Biden signed a bipartite bill that TikTok must be spun off from its China-based parent company or shut down in the US

TikTok challenged the ban in court, arguing that it violates both the users’ and the company’s free speech rights – an appeal which it took all the way to the Supreme Court, which heard the case on January 10.

The High Court’s decision means that from 19 January the tech giants Apple and Google can no longer offer TikTok in their app stores. Web hosting providers must cut ties to the platform or be subject to fines of $5,000 for each user still able to access the service, a penalty that could easily run into the billions of dollars.

TikTok’s seemingly nonstop legal limbo has sown widespread confusion among users about when and if the app will actually stop working one day. But now the nation’s highest court has upheld the federal ban.

“There is no doubt that for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a significant and expansive outlet for expression, engagement, and source of community. But Congress has determined that the divestment is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns. regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. “We conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”

Acknowledging the tight time frame they were operating under, the judges emphasized that the ruling should only be seen as applicable to TikTok, not as sweeping precedent. “This caution is heightened in these cases given the accelerated time allowed for our consideration. Our analysis must be understood as narrowly focused in light of these circumstances,” the justices wrote.

Anupam Chander, a law professor at Georgetown University who has followed the TikTok case closely, said the judges actually framed the ruling as TikTok-specific, but it could have ramifications beyond the app’s corporate ownership.

“There is one Bush v. Gore aspect of the decision in that it is a one-off and not intended to have major precedential value,” Chander said, referring to the landmark 2000 ruling. “But this will be a very important decision,” he said. “And it gives enormous power to Congress to act on data protection issues.”

The ruling follows one emergency hearing held last week, where the justices seemed skeptical that the freedom of speech of millions of American TikTok users should outweigh the national security risk Congress says China poses. Lawmakers fear the Chinese government could use the app to spy on Americans or spread pro-Chinese propaganda, although TikTok skeptics have never shown concrete examples of that happening.

When Congress passed the law in April targeting TikTok, lawmakers provided a way for the company to avoid deportation: Full divestment from China-based parent company ByteDance, which would address national security concerns for lawmakers and the intelligence community in Washington.

But for TikTok executives, it is merely a symbolic lifeline, as ByteDance has consistently indicated that the platform, China’s first global social media hit, is not for sale. Furthermore, export control laws in China prevent TikTok’s algorithm from being sold unless Beijing’s regulators bless the transaction, something China experts have said the country is unlikely to do.

The only justice to express concern about the free speech implications of a ban was Neil Gorsuch, who called banning TikTok to remove the China threat a “paternalistic view.”

“I mean, don’t we usually assume that the best remedy for problematic speech is counter speech?” Gorsuch said, adding that TikTok has raised the possibility of including a disclaimer on its app indicating that some content may be covertly manipulated by China.

U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the federal government, quickly shot it down with this analogy: “Imagine if you walked into a store and I had a sign that said one in 1 million products in this store causes cancer,” she told the court. . “It won’t tell you which product is actually putting your health at risk.”

All eyes are now on President-elect Donald Trump. He filed a brief with the Supreme Court ahead of last week’s oral arguments asking that the justices delay a decision to give him time for his administration to carve out a “negotiated solution” that would address the national security concerns.

Trump, who tried without success to ban TikTok in his first term, has since reversed course and will now save the app. He has publicly attributed his change of heart to his belief that TikTok increased the youth vote for him in November. But other have pointed to the timing of his flip-flop after Trump met with a billionaire hedge fund manager whose trading group owns a major stake in ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company.

The TikTok ban will begin on January 19. The following day, Trump is sworn in.

Once Trump is in the White House, he can instruct his Justice Department not to enforce the ban. That would put Apple, Google and other companies that deal with TikTok in an awkward position, since the companies would technically be in violation of federal law.

Another scenario is that Trump may extend the start date of the ban, although it will have already started on January 19.

“As I understand it, we’re shutting down. It’s possible that on January 20, 21, 22, we could be in a different world,” TikTok lawyer Noel Francisco told the court last week, suggesting that Trump may be able to prohibit pause.

Under the law, the president can extend the ban for a period of 90 days, but only if progress is made toward a sale away from ByteDance.

Prelogar, along with the federal government, told the court during oral arguments that if the ban goes into effect, it might just give the U.S. government enough leverage to convince ByteDance and Chinese regulators to allow the sale of TikTok to a U.S. company or group of American investors.

“When push comes to shove and these restrictions go into effect, I think it’s going to fundamentally change the landscape in terms of what ByteDance is willing to consider, and maybe that’s the push that Congress expected the company to actually had to move forward with the divestiture process,” she said.