Justices step in to review TikTok days before ban of Chinese-owned platform

The Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it would hear TikTok’s challenge to legislation banning it from operating domestically because of national security concerns.

The case will be argued on Jan. 10, nine days before the law takes effect.

The justices said they will review whether the law, which orders the popular social media app to be sold by Jan. 19 or cease operations within the U.S., violates the First Amendment.

A spokesman for TikTok, which petitioned the justices to intervene, said the social media company is pleased with the Supreme Court’s move.

“We believe the court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their free speech rights,” Michael Hughes said.

Granting review, scheduling oral arguments and handing down decisions usually take months, but the Supreme Court moved to expedite this challenge.

The parties must file their opening briefs by Dec. 27, and oral arguments are scheduled just two weeks later. The disputes are scheduled for two hours but will likely run longer.

The justices didn’t enjoin the law from taking effect; instead, they postponed that decision until after hearing arguments.

This month, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled to uphold the law against the Chinese-owned company, which claims to have 170 million American users.

TikTok claims the legislation violates free speech. A group of users challenging the law say the platform helps their businesses in ways other social media platforms cannot because of TikTok’s editing tools and recommendations via video sharing.

The ban, approved by Congress and signed by President Biden in April, will take effect if ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, hasn’t divested itself of the app.

The legislation won bipartisan support in Congress from lawmakers who say TikTok poses a national security threat by collecting user data. The concern is that the Chinese government could use that data.

The Justice Department said TikTok received direction about content on its platform from the Chinese government, The Associated Press reported.

With President-elect Donald Trump taking office next month, it’s unclear whether the Justice Department will support the law.

Mr. Trump’s position on TikTok has changed. He initially recognized it as a national security threat but has since created an account and softened his stance on the platform. In a post on Truth Social in September, he said he would “save TikTok in America.”

On Monday, he said his administration would examine the issue because he believes the app helped him gain ground with young voters in last month’s presidential election.

“I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Mr. Trump said at his press conference.

He will assume the presidency on Jan. 20, one day after the law takes effect, barring a Supreme Court injunction or rule.

Gus Hurwitz, academic director of the Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, said a Supreme Court hearing rather than an injunction made sense.

“The justices don’t want to delay implementation of the law if they are likely to affirm the D.C. Circuit’s decision to uphold it, but not delaying the law would seriously harm TikTok. Hearing the full case in January lets the justices engage with the facts in more detail and gives them surer footing to decide whether or not to enjoin the law until they reach a final decision,” he said.

The Liberty Justice Center, representing Based Politics Inc., one of the TikTok users challenging the legislation, welcomed the court’s move.

“It’s encouraging that the Supreme Court acted so quickly to take up this case and that the court will hear arguments before the TikTok ban can take effect on Jan. 19,” said Jacob Huebert, president of the Liberty Justice Center. “This law would suppress Americans’ speech on an unprecedented scale, and we’re hopeful that the court will issue an order to stop that from ever happening.”