Supreme Court Justices Grill TikTok’s Lawyer in National Security Case

The law, passed with strong bipartisan support last year and signed by outgoing President Joe Biden, aims to address concerns about TikTok’s Chinese ownership and the potential for foreign influence. The Biden administration has defended the legislation, arguing that the app poses a significant risk to national security. However, TikTok, ByteDance, and several of the app’s users claim that the law infringes on their First Amendment rights.

During Friday’s hearing, the nine Supreme Court justices scrutinized both sides of the argument. TikTok’s lawyer, Noel Francisco, emphasized the app’s role as a key platform for free expression in the U.S., telling the court that a ban would effectively silence millions of Americans. According to Reuters, Francisco argued that the law is less about legitimate security concerns and more about controlling the flow of information.

“The real target of the law is the speech itself — this fear that Americans, even if fully informed, could be persuaded by Chinese misinformation,” Francisco stated. He urged the justices to block the legislation, saying, “In short, this act should not stand.”

Related: Supreme Court to Review TikTok’s Legal Challenge Over US Ban

The government’s concerns center on ByteDance’s ownership and its potential ties to the Chinese government. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Francisco on this point, referencing Congress’s findings. “Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Roberts asked. He pointed out that Congress’s primary concern was the risk of foreign manipulation of content and data collection from American users.

According to Reuters, the Justice Department has previously described TikTok as a national security threat, highlighting the potential for espionage, blackmail, and covert content manipulation. With an estimated 170 million U.S. users, TikTok has become deeply embedded in American digital culture, making the case all the more contentious.

Justice Elena Kagan raised doubts about TikTok’s argument that the law infringes on its First Amendment rights. “The law is only targeted at this foreign corporation, which doesn’t have First Amendment rights,” Kagan said, questioning whether the constitutional protections apply to ByteDance, given its foreign ownership.

Adding a political dimension to the case, incoming President Donald Trump, who is set to begin his second term on January 20, has voiced opposition to the ban. In a statement on December 27, Trump urged the Supreme Court to delay the January 19 deadline, arguing that his administration should have the opportunity to seek a political solution to the dispute. Francisco echoed this sentiment, asking the court to temporarily block the law while the case is considered in full.

Source: Reuters