On Friday, the Supreme Court heard contrasting arguments about banning TikTok, a platform with 170 million U.S. users. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned if ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, encourages divisive behavior among Americans.
“If they do, I’d say they’re winning,” Roberts remarked, prompting laughter in the courtroom. However, the justices themselves showed little disagreement on their positions.
Legal experts anticipated the court would favor the government’s national security concerns over TikTok’s First Amendment arguments. The debate largely focused on TikTok’s ties to ByteDance rather than challenging Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s defense of Congress’ “sell-or-ban” law, supported by President Joe Biden.
National Security vs. Free Speech
Assessing TikTok’s Threat to National Security
Prelogar argued TikTok poses risks due to its data-sharing practices with ByteDance in China. She emphasized that Chinese law compels ByteDance to assist government intelligence operations.
Chief Justice Roberts highlighted Congress’ concern about potential Chinese manipulation of TikTok’s content and data harvesting. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that China’s data collection could enable future espionage or blackmail, calling it a significant national security issue.
TikTok’s lawyer, Noel Francisco, contended the platform retains control and can resist nefarious demands from ByteDance or China. He argued that even with ByteDance ties, legal analysis remains unchanged. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned conflicting claims about China’s influence, emphasizing the need for clarity.
The First Amendment Debate
TikTok’s attorneys argued the ban violates First Amendment rights. Francisco claimed losing ByteDance’s algorithm would harm TikTok’s ability to serve users effectively. Attorney Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok creators, argued banning the app undermines Americans’ right to collaborate with foreign publishers.
Prelogar countered that the First Amendment doesn’t protect TikTok’s ties to China, noting Congress’ focus is removing foreign influence, not restricting specific speech.
Potential Outcomes and Implications
Uncertainty Around Enforcement
Justice Kavanaugh questioned whether a future Trump administration might decline to enforce the ban, citing presidential discretion. Prelogar stated Trump would need to evaluate updated national security data before deciding.
Justice Samuel Alito asked about temporarily postponing the law’s enforcement. Prelogar said this was unlikely since TikTok’s First Amendment arguments lack sufficient merit.
TikTok’s lawyer warned the platform would cease U.S. operations if forced to divest by January 19. The Justice Department suggested TikTok might comply with the law once enforcement becomes unavoidable.
Exploring Alternatives to a Ban
TikTok’s legal team proposed less drastic measures, such as requiring warnings about potential Chinese manipulation or blocking data-sharing with ByteDance. Prelogar dismissed these suggestions as insufficient, arguing users wouldn’t understand the risks.
Justice Alito questioned whether TikTok’s algorithm is truly unique, wondering if other platforms could replicate its success. Fisher responded that competitors have failed to match TikTok’s dominance.
TikTok Creators and Users Contemplate a Post-TikTok World
TikTok’s uncertain future has left many users worried. Business owner Callie Goodwin, who flew to Washington for the hearing, expressed concerns about her livelihood. TikTok drives 98% of her sales, with $30,000 in revenue during one holiday shopping period.
Meanwhile, some users, like college student Eli Benson, see a potential ban as an opportunity to reduce social media use. “Maybe this is my sign to be done,” Benson said.
As the debate continues, the future of TikTok in the U.S. remains in limbo, with millions of users bracing for the impact of the court’s decision.