With a looming deadline, the Supreme Court hears arguments from TikTok, users, and the Biden administration in a case that could reshape the future of foreign-owned social media platforms in the U.S.
The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments from TikTok on Friday to block or delay a law that would ban the social media platform in the U.S. starting Jan. 19 unless its Chinese owner sells the company.
TikTok, owned by parent company ByteDance, finally got its chance to present its case to the court in a hearing on Jan. 10. The short-form video platform argued on First Amendment grounds as the U.S. continued to contend that it posed a national security risk.
With a conservative majority, the nine justices on the court heard oral arguments from TikTok’s lawyers, the app’s users, as well as the Biden administration. The high-profile case sets a precedent for regulating foreign-owned social media apps.
In December 2024, the ban was enacted with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Joe Biden in the federal appeals court.
It is the Supreme Court’s turn to weigh on the challenge to a law requiring TikTok’s China-based owner, ByteDance, to sell the platform by Jan. 19 or face a U.S. ban, addressing national security concerns over potential Chinese government influence on the app which is widely used by over 170 million Americans.
TikTok and its users argue the measure violates First Amendment rights, setting up a clash between free speech protections and national security claims.
TikTok star Milan Bhayana, who has a popular TikTok account, lilchefmil, said, “TikTok for You Page uniquely allowed anyone to go viral. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, all have barriers to encounter new poeple, so the beauty of TikTok’s algorithm is something I’ll be sad to see go.”
Bhayana, who posts cooking content, narrated by his sister Malaika, has nearly 900,000 followers. His videos have gained over 28 million likes.
During the oral discussions, Noel Francisco, an attorney for TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, argued that forcing a divestiture of TikTok was comparable to shutting down The Washington Post if the Chinese government forced Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ companies in China to promote Chinese policy. He also denied that China has direct influence over the source code of TikTok as it operates in the U.S and said that a divestiture would prevent TikTok from being able to operate.
“There’s a global team of engineers, some in China, some in Europe, and some in the United States that update and maintain the source code,” Francisco said. “A qualified divestiture would prohibit any kind of coordination with that global team of engineers.”
When asked to provide precedent for regulating corporate structure as a direct regulation of conduct, Francisco stated that TikTok’s case is largely unprecedented. He argued that the national security risks posed by TikTok do not justify the law.
“I’m not aware of any time in American history where the Congress has tried to shut down a major speech platform,” Francisco said. If TikTok loses the case, Francisco said, “it will go dark” on Jan. 19. He suggested a preliminary injunction could “buy everybody a little breathing space.”
Advocacy group Stop AAPI, which campaigns against racism and racial injustice targeting Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, expressed concerns about a potential TikTok ban.
“Reports indicate that the Supreme Court is likely to uphold the law that would ban TikTok unless it is sold,” the organization said in a statement emailed to The American Bazaar. “Stop AAPI Hate is deeply concerned about the precedent this ruling will set, as it will send a signal to the world that simply being a person or company with origins in China is enough to be labeled a national security threat — no evidence required. In fact, our research highlights how the government routinely scapegoats Asian communities for national security, public health, and economic issues to justify racial profiling, discrimination, and the desecration of our rights and freedoms.”
The group pointed out that many “political leaders have also been spouting Sinophobic and anti-Asian rhetoric to justify the TikTok ban, which incites further discrimination and acts of hate and violence against not just Chinese people across the U.S. but also Asian Americans more broadly.”
Stop AAPI Hate encouraged members of the AAPI community and others to “report acts of anti-AAPI hate” to its reporting center, “which allows us to better understand how measures like the TikTok ban are impacting the safety and well-being of our communities.”