WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court heard arguments Friday on a potential ban of TikTok, a platform used by 170 million Americans. Chief Justice John Roberts humorously remarked on ByteDance’s influence: “If they’re trying to make Americans argue, they’re winning.” Despite laughter, the justices appeared aligned on their stance.
Experts predicted the court would prioritize national security over TikTok’s First Amendment claims. Arguments confirmed this focus, with justices questioning TikTok more intensely than Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. Prelogar defended the “sell-or-be-banned” law passed by Congress and supported by President Biden.
However, uncertainty looms as President-elect Donald Trump, who once sought to ban TikTok, takes office the day after TikTok must comply with divestiture. Trump has recently vowed to “save” the app.
National Security vs. TikTok’s Defense
TikTok’s data-sharing with its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, poses a national security threat, according to Prelogar. She highlighted that China could secretly demand this data under Chinese laws. “This creates a gaping vulnerability,” she said.
Roberts emphasized Congress’ concern about ByteDance’s potential involvement in Chinese intelligence work. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that China might use harvested data for espionage or blackmail in the future, posing a grave threat to national security.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the extent of ByteDance’s control over TikTok, asking for clarity on the evidence. TikTok’s lawyer Noel Francisco countered, asserting the company could resist ByteDance’s pressure to misuse data. He argued this issue wouldn’t alter the legal analysis.
Impact of Trump’s Role
Justice Kavanaugh explored whether Trump could decide not to enforce the ban after taking office. Prelogar acknowledged presidential discretion but noted Trump would likely assess updated national security intelligence before acting. However, Kavanaugh worried app distributors like Apple and Google might not risk defying the law without stronger assurances.
Justice Samuel Alito raised the possibility of the court delaying the ban, but Prelogar opposed this. She argued TikTok was unlikely to win based on First Amendment claims, citing bipartisan support for the law.
TikTok attorney Francisco warned the platform would shut down in the U.S. without a delay. Prelogar dismissed this, suggesting TikTok might divest after all once the restrictions take effect.
First Amendment and Alternative Solutions
TikTok’s lawyers argued the ban infringes on the First Amendment rights of both the company and its users. They claimed ByteDance’s algorithm was integral to serving users, and losing it would diminish the platform. TikTok creators also highlighted their right to collaborate with foreign publishers.
Prelogar countered that Congress aimed to remove China from the equation, not restrict speech. She dismissed less drastic solutions, like warnings about Chinese manipulation, as insufficient. TikTok’s claims of a “firewall” blocking data sharing with ByteDance were also deemed implausible.
Justice Alito questioned TikTok’s uniqueness, suggesting competitors like Meta could fill the gap. TikTok creators’ lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, responded that rivals have consistently failed to replicate TikTok’s success.
Users Face an Uncertain Future
While the court debated TikTok’s fate, users reflected on life without the app. South Carolina entrepreneur Callie Goodwin, who generates nearly all her sales through TikTok, worried about her business. “Losing TikTok could threaten my survival,” she said.
Conversely, college student Eli Benson saw a potential ban as a chance to reduce social media use. “Maybe this is my sign to step away,” Benson said.
As the Jan. 19 deadline approaches, the stakes for TikTok and its users remain high.
