US top court leans towards TikTok ban over security concerns
The Supreme Court is likely to uphold a law banning TikTok in the US due to national security concerns unless its China-based parent company, ByteDance, sells the platform before a 19 January deadline.
The Court’s nine justices heard arguments from lawyers representing TikTok and content creators, who argued that the ban would violate free speech protections for the platform’s more than 170 million US users.
The US government contends that without a sale, TikTok could become a tool for China to conduct espionage and political manipulation.
A decision by the Court must be made in the coming days. President-elect Donald Trump, who is returning to the White House soon, has now opposed the ban.
The law requires ByteDance to sell TikTok in the US or cease operations by 19 January. ByteDance has stated it will not sell the platform.
The law, which was passed with bipartisan support in Congress, reflects growing concerns over the popular platform, particularly its widespread use among young people.
While the legislation doesn’t outright ban the app, it would compel tech giants like Apple and Google to stop offering it and prevent updates, potentially leading to its demise.
TikTok has consistently denied any influence by the Chinese Communist Party and claims the law infringes on users’ First Amendment rights to free speech.
Noel Francisco, a former US solicitor general representing TikTok, warned that banning the platform, which is widely used for speech, could set a dangerous precedent for censorship.
He argued, “The government cannot restrict speech to protect us from speech,” emphasizing that the law is an overreach.
A representative for content creators argued that they should have the right to choose the platform they use.
Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, who represents creators suing over the law, pointed out that the US has faced ideological campaigns by foreign adversaries in the past, but under the First Amendment, ideas themselves do not pose a national security threat.
Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued that ByteDance’s ties to the Chinese government make TikTok a national security risk, claiming that Beijing could weaponize the platform to harm the US.
During the nearly three-hour arguments, the justices revisited the national security concerns that prompted the law, while also examining free speech issues.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts pressed TikTok’s lawyer, Mr. Francisco, asking, “Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh drilled into concerns the US government has raised about the data the app collects on its users and how that data might be used.
The risks seem like a “huge concern for the future of the country”, he said.
In December, US President-elect Donald Trump urged the court to delay its decision until he returns to the White House to enable him to seek a “political solution” to resolve the issues at hand.
TikTok’s lawyer told the court on Friday that, as he saw it, the platform would “go dark” on 19 January without intervention.
Ms Prelogar, arguing for the US Justice Department, said “nothing permanent” had to happen on that day and there was still time for a sale.
Forcing the app to go dark could be just the “jolt” ByteDance needs to seriously consider a sale, she said.
“It will fundamentally change the landscape concerning what ByteDance might consider,” she said, comparing the situation to “game of chicken” and one in which the US should not “blink first”.
After the hearing, legal observers predicted that the Supreme Court’s justices appeared to be swayed by the government’s concerns.
“Traditionally the Supreme Court has been willing to defer somewhat when national security is at stake,” said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.
“I expect that the justices by a majority will side with the government,” he added.
Jacob Hubert, a lawyer and the president of the Liberty Justice Center – which represents BASED Politics, an internet content creator – said it was still difficult to predict how the court would rule.
But he says the ban would violate the freedom of speech of millions of Americans – a point he believes was effectively made by TikTok’s lawyers.
“It’s not about China’s rights or the Communist Party’s rights,” he said. “It is about the rights of Americans who use TikTok to, largely, speak with other Americans.”
More than a hundred people braved freezing conditions in Washington DC to attend the hearing in person.
Chloe Joy Sexton – one of the TikTok creators named in the suit – said that the platform brought many creators “financial independence”, including many mothers.
“A TikTok ban would place these women, myself included, in true financial jeopardy,” she told reporters. “It would destroy both my business and the community that means so much to me.”
Danielle Ballesteros, a student at UC San Diego, said had been waiting outside the court since 06:30 local time.
“I feel like TikTok doesn’t deserve to be banned,” she told BBC News.
While admitting to using it “probably too much”, she said she believes the app to be an important news source for her generation.
TikTok is already banned from government devices in many countries, including in the UK. It faces more complete bans in some countries, including India.
Last December, a three-judge appeals court decision upheld the law, noting China’s record of acting through private companies and saying the measure was justified as “part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed” by the country.
