For TikTok's estimated 170 million American users, the next few weeks may determine whether the short-form video app remains a mainstay on their smartphones or vanishes from U.S. platforms entirely. The stakes could not be higher. On Friday, the nine justices of the Supreme Court will consider whether a law that effectively bans TikTok-unless its China-based owner divests the platform's U.S. operations-should be allowed to stand.
In a session likely to draw significant public attention, the high court will hear arguments from TikTok's lawyers, eight individual users, the conservative group Based Politics Inc., and the Biden administration's Justice Department. TikTok has challenged the constitutionality of the ban, which is set to take effect on Jan. 19. With at least a preliminary decision expected soon, the case underscores a collision of technology, national security, and First Amendment rights in the digital age.
The law in dispute was passed in April with bipartisan backing in Congress and signed by President Biden. It compels ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, to divest its U.S. business by Jan. 19-or else risk a nationwide ban. Government lawyers justify the measure as a bulwark against potential Chinese manipulation of user data, while TikTok's counsel labels it an overreach that throttles free speech. "TikTok is expected to argue that a Biden administration law banning the app is unconstitutional because it undercuts the free speech of the millions of Americans who use it," one brief states.
On Friday, the justices will weigh these arguments in an emergency hearing. While it is possible that they might issue a swift ruling on whether to block the law, a full and final decision on the constitutionality question is not expected immediately. The Supreme Court could also push the Jan. 19 date back, allowing more time for deliberation and negotiations.
Opponents of the ban have been vocal. In court documents, TikTok's legal team asserts that while the U.S. has a legitimate interest in national security, the law "does not include suppressing the speech of Americans because other Americans may be persuaded." The app's lawyers argue that the government did not explore alternative methods to mitigate national security threats, insisting that a forced shutdown or divestment tramples on free expression.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, contends that the measure "addresses the serious threats to national security posed by the Chinese government's control of TikTok, a platform that harvests sensitive data about tens of millions of Americans and would be a potent tool for covert influence operations by a foreign adversary." According to the administration, concerns are not about squelching speech but about foreign ownership that could compromise the data and opinions of U.S. citizens.
The Supreme Court's path forward is complex, not least because there is a provision in the current law that allows the president to grant a one-time 90-day extension if he believes a sale is imminent. However, there are few signs that Beijing would approve such a transaction. China has historically resisted any export of TikTok's core technology, which hinges on an algorithm that adapts videos to users' tastes at lightning speed.
Adding a political twist, President-elect Donald Trump has filed an amicus brief urging the justices to delay any ruling until he takes office. He says he wants to "pursue a political resolution" and possibly broker an agreement that would make TikTok's U.S. operations American-owned. Trump's stance is especially striking because he once threatened to ban TikTok during his first term, but later shifted, claiming that TikTok proved advantageous to him on the campaign trail. Some analysts point to potential financial interests as well, noting the involvement of high-profile investors in ByteDance.
In April, Congress concluded that blocking Chinese control of the app aligns with a broader national security strategy. After a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia found the ban constitutionally permissible despite its First Amendment implications, the matter quickly proceeded to the Supreme Court. The appellate judges had emphasized that the government's interest in preventing foreign interference in U.S. media is compelling and that the law is narrowly tailored to that interest.
Meanwhile, everyday TikTok users have been warily awaiting the outcome. Various creators are advising fans to hedge their bets by exploring Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts. Some are promoting the use of VPNs, which can circumvent regional platform restrictions.
Behind the scenes, tech observers are also tracking the possibility of a negotiated sale. Beijing's official stance remains that TikTok is not for sale, but some analysts suggest China might consider loosening that position if it could extract concessions from a new administration. The question is whether any such bargaining would happen soon enough-and whether Trump, if the law is upheld, would use executive discretion to delay enforcement.
As the justices prepare to scrutinize the ban, multiple free-speech advocacy groups, including the ACLU and the Cato Institute, have backed TikTok with amicus briefs. They argue that restricting the platform is tantamount to curtailing the speech of millions of users, not just ByteDance. On the flip side, Montana and 21 other states support the federal government, highlighting the intelligence community's warnings about foreign influence through social media.
