TikTok filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court on Monday, requesting the justices to delay a law that mandates the video-sharing platform either divest from its Chinese parent company or face a nationwide ban. The company is asking the court to postpone the January 19 deadline until the justices can address TikTok’s First Amendment concerns in their regular docket.
In the application, TikTok’s legal team argued, “The Act will shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration. This, in turn, will silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern.”
The appeal is directed to Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency cases from the D.C. Circuit. Roberts can either decide the matter on his own or refer it to the full Supreme Court for a vote. TikTok has requested that the court act by January 6, which is about two weeks before the potential ban could take effect, to give app stores and internet hosting providers sufficient time to comply, if necessary.
TikTok’s appeal comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the company’s legal challenge to the law and refused to extend the deadline until TikTok had exhausted its appeals process.
In addition to TikTok’s request, several content creators who use the platform also filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to block the law’s implementation. These creators had previously filed alongside TikTok at the D.C. Circuit, and both cases were considered together. “Even a temporary shutdown of TikTok will cause permanent harm to applicants — a representative group of Americans who use TikTok to speak, associate, and listen — as well as the public at large,” the creators’ legal team stated in their filing.
The law in question, which was passed with broad bipartisan support in Congress and signed by President Biden in April, gives ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company based in China, about nine months to sell off its stake in the app or face a ban from U.S. networks and app stores. TikTok has argued that the law infringes on the free speech rights of both the company and its content creators. However, a lower court dismissed these claims along with several other constitutional arguments presented by TikTok.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, stating that it meets the “high bar” required for constitutional challenges. The court emphasized that the law’s significant effects were justified by national security concerns, specifically regarding TikTok’s connections to China. The ruling indicated that the government’s concerns over national security outweighed TikTok’s constitutional challenges.
Although the Supreme Court rarely grants emergency relief, TikTok’s lawyers are hopeful that the case represents one of the rare instances where such relief will be granted. According to an analysis by The Hill, only two of more than two dozen emergency appeals have been successful this term. TikTok’s legal team pointed out the court’s longstanding commitment to protecting free speech, noting, “The Supreme Court has an established record of upholding Americans’ right to free speech.” The company further stated, “Today, we are asking the Court to do what it has traditionally done in free speech cases: apply the most rigorous scrutiny to speech bans and conclude that it violates the First Amendment.”
TikTok contends that there is no immediate threat to national security, making a delay reasonable. The company highlighted that President-elect Donald Trump had expressed support for TikTok, which further bolstered its argument for a delay. “An interim injunction is also appropriate because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok,” TikTok’s application read.
President Trump had opposed the divest-or-ban law during his campaign, pledging to “save TikTok” if elected. However, since his victory, the president-elect has not provided specific details regarding his plans to protect the platform. When asked on Monday whether he would take action to prevent the ban from going into effect, Trump indicated he would “take a look.” He remarked, “I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” adding that he had “won youth by 34 points” and suggesting that TikTok played a role in that success.
The issue surrounding TikTok has drawn significant attention due to its potential impact on free speech and national security. The platform, which has amassed millions of users in the U.S., serves as a major avenue for communication, creativity, and expression. The law requiring TikTok to divest from its Chinese ownership stems from concerns that the app could be used for surveillance by the Chinese government, though TikTok has repeatedly denied such allegations.
In the event that the law takes effect, it could force TikTok to either sell off its operations in the U.S. or face removal from app stores, effectively making it unavailable to millions of users. This would have far-reaching consequences for both content creators and consumers who use the platform for various purposes, including politics, business, and entertainment.
The Supreme Court’s decision to intervene could have significant implications not only for TikTok but for the broader issue of free speech in the digital age. The case raises important questions about the balance between national security concerns and the protection of constitutional rights. The outcome could set a precedent for how the U.S. government can regulate foreign-owned technology platforms in the future, especially those that have a substantial user base and influence over public discourse.
As TikTok continues to press its legal battle, the outcome remains uncertain, with the company striving to delay the law until it can fully present its First Amendment arguments before the Supreme Court. The potential ban, which looms just weeks away, has sparked intense debate over the role of social media in modern society and the rights of users to communicate freely online. With both legal and political forces at play, the situation is far from resolved, and all eyes will be on the Supreme Court as it considers whether to take action in this high-profile case.