On Friday, a lawyer representing TikTok presented arguments before the Supreme Court, asserting that a ban on the social network would infringe upon both TikTok’s and Americans’ First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether to overturn or delay a law that could effectively ban TikTok in the United States.
The legislation in question, known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, mandates that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, divest its U.S. operations by January 19, 2025, or face a ban. This hearing took place just nine days before the critical sell-or-ban deadline.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, emphasized that the platform would be forced to shut down on January 19 unless the Supreme Court intervenes. He also mentioned President-elect Donald Trump’s support for the app, suggesting that a change in administration could impact the situation.
The platform shuts down unless there’s a divestiture, unless President Trump exercises his authority to extend it. But, he can’t do that on January 19. On January 19, we still have President Biden. And on January 19, as I understand it, we shut down. It is possible that come January 20, 21, 22 we might be in a different world. Again, that’s one of the reasons why I think it makes perfect sense to issue a preliminary injunction here, and simply buy everybody a little breathing space.
Francisco argued that TikTok’s For You algorithm should be protected under free speech rights, as it reflects the company’s editorial discretion over the content it distributes. When questioned about the feasibility of divesting the social network within the given timeframe, Francisco contended that a divestiture would not be practical under any timeline. TikTok has consistently maintained that a sale is unfeasible because China would block the export of its algorithm. Francisco also noted that TikTok would be fundamentally different without access to global creator content.
Furthermore, Francisco argued that a new version of TikTok in the U.S. with a different algorithm would prevent any coordination with ByteDance’s global team of engineers, resulting in completely different content. He claimed that it would take years to assemble a new team of engineers and develop a new version of the app. Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok content creators, also argued that the law infringes upon their rights, asserting that they have the right to collaborate with the publisher of their choice.
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear ByteDance and TikTok’s challenge to the sell-or-ban law, despite the Department of Justice’s concerns that a delay would pose a continued threat to national security. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, attorneys representing President-elect Donald Trump requested the court to pause the ban.
In their filing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the sell-or-ban deadline, which falls one day before his inauguration, presents “unfortunate timing” and interferes with his “ability to manage the United States’ foreign policy.” Although Trump initially called for a ban on the app during his first term, he adopted a different stance during his 2024 campaign, pledging to save the app if elected.
President Biden signed the sell-or-ban law in April 2024, following years of allegations from the U.S. government that TikTok’s connections to China pose a national security risk and expose Americans’ sensitive information to the Chinese government. If ByteDance fails to sell the platform by January 19, it will become illegal for app stores and internet hosting services to distribute the social network.
