SCOTUS to Hear Suit on TikTok Ban
The Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to take up TikTok's case against the bill either banning the app or forcing it to divest its U.S. operations. The court granted the TikTok's petition for writ of certiorari though it deferred its application for an injunction against the bill pending oral argument. Initial briefs in the suit are due by Dec. 27 (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, Sup. Ct. # 24-656).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the ban, finding that it withstands constitutional scrutiny (see 2412060035). The appellate court said that the government's twin security concerns about China's efforts to collect data of and about U.S. individuals and to manipulate content on the app were sufficient to justify the measure.
TikTok immediately took to the Supreme Court, in light of its January deadline to either sell or be subject to the ban, claiming that an injunction is needed since the the company is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. The petition said the ban is subject to strict scrutiny under the Constitution and fails to survive this level of scrutiny.
TikTok argued that the First Amendment "fully protects it from Congress’s attempt to ban its operation of the platform based on its purported susceptibility to foreign influence," given that it's a U.S. company "exercising editorial discretion over a U.S. speech platform." In addition, the app said the government failed to prove that the risk of Chinese influence on the app couldn't be remedied "through an express disclosure." As for the risk of data collection, TikTok cited congressional hypocrisy, finding that the "Act inexplicably exempts numerous websites and applications that present no less risk (if not greater risk)."