The United States Supreme Court enforce a law Friday, this could give rise to a TikTok ban in the United States this Sunday.
“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok provides a distinctive and expansive means of expression, a means of engagement, and a source of community,” the court’s unanimous opinion said. “But Congress has determined that divestment is necessary to address its well-founded national security concerns about TikTok’s data collection practices and its dealings with a foreign adversary.”
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 like the FBI have not provided the public with much information confirming these claims, but have used a variety of different methods to ban TikTok.
In response to the decision, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew published a video on the platform thanking new President Donald Trump for supporting the app. “We are grateful and happy to have the support of a president who really understands our platform,” Chew said. “One who used TikTok to express his own thoughts and views, connecting with the world and generating over 60 billion views of his content in the process.”
Chew did not say whether TikTok would officially shut down on Sunday, but said: “Rest assured, we will do everything in our power to ensure our platform thrives as your online home for creative and unlimited discovery, as well as a source of inspiration and joy for years to come.
In 2020, former President Donald Trump first attempted to ban TikTok by a failed decree. Eventually, President Joe Biden signed a bill into law on April 24, 2024, requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app to a U.S. owner by January 19 or be removed from U.S. app stores . In the 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.
During oral arguments Friday, TikTok attorney Noel Francisco and Jeffrey Fisher, who represents the creators, tried to make that argument. For the government, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the law did not violate the defendants’ free speech rights, but rather separated the app from ByteDance and Chinese influence.
“Without question, the remedy that Congress and the President have chosen here is dramatic,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. “I don’t know if this law will achieve its goals. A determined foreign adversary could simply seek to replace one lost surveillance application with another. As time passes and threats evolve, less dramatic and more effective solutions may emerge. »
In its opinion, the court casts doubt on TikTok’s central argument that the law violates the company’s free speech rights, writing that the “challenged provisions are ostensibly content-neutral.” The justices wrote that the law does not appear to regulate the speech of TikTok or its creators, but rather targets the app and ByteDance’s corporate structure.
