This page was generated automatically, to view the article in its initial location you can visit the link below:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/17/politics/tiktok-ban-supreme-court/index.html
and if you wish to remove this article from our website please reach out to us
CNN
—
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that a disputed prohibition on TikTok could go into effect this weekend, denying a plea from the app’s proprietors, who argued that the ban infringed upon the First Amendment.
The court issued an unsigned ruling and there were no dissenting opinions recorded.
This ruling, which followed cautions from the Biden administration regarding the app’s potential “serious” national security risk due to its connections with China, will permit the prohibition to begin on Sunday. Nonetheless, many questions persist about how the ban would operate in reality since there is no historical precedent for the US government banning a significant social media platform. Additionally, how the government would implement the ban remains uncertain.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that for 170 million Americans, TikTok provides “a unique and broad platform for expression, means of engagement, and a source of community.”
However, the court stated that Congress was primarily concerned with national security worries, which, according to the court, significantly influenced its evaluation of the case.
“Congress has concluded that divestiture is required to address its well-founded national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection methods and association with a foreign antagonist,” the court stated.
The ruling also casts a spotlight on President-elect Donald Trump, who spoke with CNN’s Pamela Brown after the announcement of the decision.
“Ultimately, it falls on me, so you will see what my decision will be,” Trump remarked.
When asked if he would take steps to attempt to overturn the impending ban, Trump stated that he would “be making the decision.”
“Congress has entrusted me with this decision, so I will be making the decision.”
Trump also verified that he had a discussion with Chinese President Xi Jinping, noting they had “a productive conversation about TikTok and several other topics.”
The court, however, pointed out that Trump previously sought to prohibit TikTok.
“President Trump determined that TikTok posed specific concerns, mentioning that the platform ‘automatically collects extensive amounts of data from its users’ and is vulnerable to being used to advance the interests of the Chinese government,” the court noted.
As the effective date of the ban approaches, President Joe Biden’s administration indicated it would leave the enforcement of the prohibition to Trump, who will be sworn in on Monday. Nevertheless, TikTok has mentioned it may “go dark” once the ban is enacted.
“President Biden’s stance on TikTok has been clear for months, especially since Congress delivered a bill in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner to the President: TikTok should remain accessible to Americans, but only under American ownership or another ownership that mitigates the national security issues recognized by Congress in developing this law,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated in a release.
“Considering the undeniable fact of timing, this administration acknowledges that actions to enforce the law must simply be transferred to the next administration, which is set to be inaugurated on Monday,” she continued.
TikTok’s Chief Executive Officer Shou Chew is anticipated to be positioned on the platform, together with prominent tech CEOs, during Trump’s inauguration — potentially indicating how serious the incoming president is regarding efforts to preserve the application.
Additionally, with some Congressional members now suggesting that TikTok might require additional time to secure a purchaser, Trump may garner backing in attempting to postpone the prohibition to a subsequent date.
The legislation permits the president the choice to prolong the ban by 90 days, however, invoking the extension necessitates proof that entities engaged in purchasing have made considerable progress, involving binding legal contracts for such a transaction — and TikTok’s parent enterprise, ByteDance, has yet to publicly revise its position that the application is off the market.
Numerous lawmakers stated on Friday that they are in favor of the necessity for the application to be sold.
“It’s solely about the finances. If the cost is adequate, the Chinese will divest,” declared Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut.
Republican Senator Josh Hawley remarked that China is obstructing its transfer to an American buyer.
“I believe someone would purchase it if China were to offer it for sale. That’s the issue. They’re hindering its sale. Nonetheless, I predict someone will acquire it,” stated the Missouri senator. “The decision resides entirely with Beijing. I mean, there are prospective buyers.”
Hawley expressed that he is indifferent regarding who purchases the application, “just as long as it is not someone under the influence of the Chinese government.”
Determination centers on ‘extensive’ data gathering and security issues
The determination centers significantly on worries regarding the application’s data gathering, which the court characterized as “extensive.”
“The platform gathers extensive personal data from and about its users,” the court stated.
The Biden administration had articulated two national security arguments concerning TikTok. One was the apprehension that China could access users’ data as possible leverage. The other was that the corporation could manipulate content in a manner that favors the Chinese government’s narratives.
The Supreme Court, which frequently defers to the executive branch regarding national security matters, heavily favored the data collection argument.
TikTok does “not contest that the government has a significant and well-founded concern in stopping China from accumulating the personal data of tens of millions of U.S. TikTok users,” the court noted. “Nor could they. The platform gathers substantial personal data from and about its users.”
The court was cautiously attentive to the “inherent narrowness” of its decision given the specific concerns associated with TikTok and the Chinese government. In a separate comparable instance, the justices suggested that the ruling could appear differently.
“Data gathering and analysis are commonplace practices in this digital era. However, TikTok’s magnitude and vulnerability to foreign adversary influence, along with the extensive amounts of sensitive data the platform gathers, warrant distinct treatment to address the Government’s national security apprehensions,” they articulated.
“A statute targeting any other speaker would inherently require a differentiated examination and separate considerations,” the ruling stated.
The ruling further pointed out that justices are “aware that the cases before us involve innovative technologies with transformative potentials.”
Referencing Justice Felix Frankfurter from a case nearly 80 years ago regarding the implementation of legal principles to the “entirely new challenges” posed by airplanes and radio, the present court referenced the ruling in that matter and stated: “We should be careful not to ‘complicate the future.’”
Gorsuch and Sotomayor deliberate on level of scrutiny
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch composed a concurrence outlining the differences in his interpretation of the case from a legal standpoint, while emphasizing that these reflections were made under a very tight timeframe that the court had to analyze and resolve the issue.
He expressed that he had “substantial concerns” regarding the level of scrutiny the court’s ruling applied to the statute, suggesting that he believed “strict scrutiny” – which establishes a higher standard for the government to demonstrate the law’s constitutionality – could have been the more fitting approach.
Nevertheless, even under that elevated standard, Gorsuch stated he believed the government had satisfied its obligation.
“Engaging with and supporting a foreign adversary is one matter. Permitting a foreign adversary to monitor Americans is quite another,” he noted.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who also agreed with the court’s ruling, wrote separately to express her dissent concerning the court’s choice to “assume without concluding” that the law engages the First Amendment.
The court’s sequence of cases addressing the First Amendment, she stated, “leaves no uncertainty that it does.”
This report has been revised with further updates.
