The Supreme Court agreed to a hearing Wednesday of arguments that a law that may effectively ban TikTok if its parent company doesn't sell the favored social media app violates free speech protections within the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments within the case for January 10. That's nine days before the law targeting the app, which is utilized by an estimated 170 million Americans, is about to take effect.
The law would require TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell or foreclose on the app Google, Appleand other platforms to stop supporting the app within the US.
Congress passed the law, the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, amid concerns that Chinese ownership of TikTok posed a national security risk.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law on December 6, ruling that the DOJ had presented “compelling evidence that” the divestment law was “narrowly tailored to protect national security.”
The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will hear challenges to the law filed jointly by TikTok and ByteDance, in addition to by a bunch TikTok user.
These users include a rancher who produces short videos about agricultural topics, a girl who creates videos about parenting and mental health, and one other woman who advocates for survivors of sexual assault.
TikTok spokesman Michael Hughes said: “We are pleased with today’s order from the Supreme Court. We believe the court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so that the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their right to free speech.”
The company says that if the app were banned, small U.S. businesses that use TikTok for marketing would suffer greater than $1 billion in lost revenue within the month following the ban, in addition to individuals who create videos using the app , would lose nearly $300 million in revenue.
The Supreme Court's announcement on Wednesday that it’s going to hear TikTok's appeal got here two days after the corporate filed a request for an injunction against the law that takes effect next month.
In that filing, TikTok had said, “Congress's unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and ban them from operating one of the most prominent speech platforms in this country raises serious constitutional issues that this Court is unlikely to allow.”
The Supreme Court's order allowing an appeal hearing required lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance to submit briefs to app users and the Justice Department discussing whether the law applied to TikTok “violates the First Amendment.” Constitution violates.
However, the court didn’t issue an interim injunction that may prevent the law from coming into force and said it postponed consideration of this application “until the hearing” on January 10.
The court could rule on the injunction before the law takes effect on Jan. 19, a day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday, the identical day the corporate asked the Supreme Court to just accept its case.
Earlier within the day, Trump told reporters: “We're going to take a look at TikTok” when asked in regards to the possible ban.
“You know, I have a heart for TikTok,” Trump said, suggesting the app boosted young voters’ support for him within the November election.
Jeff Yass, one in every of Trump's top supporters, is co-founder and CEO of Susquehanna International Group, a significant investor in ByteDance.
A lawyer for Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican caucus leader, said in an announcement submission On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected TikTok's request for an injunction against the law.
“TikTok clearly hopes that the 'new Trump administration' will be more sympathetic to their plight than 'President Joe Biden's administration,'” the filing said.
“In other words, delay is the point” of the injunction, argued McConnell’s attorney, Michael Fragoso.
Fragoso said TikTok's “First Amendment arguments are baseless and without merit.”
“While the forced divestiture could cause them irreparable harm, any delay caused by an injunction would be contrary to the public interest,” Fragoso wrote.
“This is a common litigation at the end of a government, in which a plaintiff hopes the next government will grant a stay of execution,” the attorney wrote. “This court should no more tolerate it coming from foreign adversaries than from hardened criminals.”
image credit : www.cnbc.com