Silke Mayr The Supreme Court on Friday explored arguments surrounding a potential ban on TikTok, a platform with 170 million U.S. users. Chief Justice John Roberts quipped that if TikTok’s parent company ByteDance aimed to spark American discord, “they’re winning,” drawing laughter in the courtroom. Yet, the justices appeared largely united in their stance.
Experts predicted the court would prioritize national security over TikTok’s claim that banning or severing ties with ByteDance violates First Amendment rights. The justices focused more on challenging TikTok’s arguments than sparring with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the law requiring TikTok’s divestiture or ban.
National Security Concerns Dominate
The government argued TikTok poses a national security risk due to data sharing with ByteDance in China. Prelogar emphasized that once data reaches China, the government could secretly demand access. Chief Justice Roberts noted ByteDance’s legal obligation to support Chinese intelligence, asking if this risk should be ignored. Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced concern that China could harvest data for espionage or blackmail.
TikTok’s lawyer, Noel Francisco, countered that TikTok could refuse ByteDance’s influence and argued that even if ByteDance had overwhelming power, it wouldn’t change the constitutional analysis. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the conflicting views on China’s control over TikTok, highlighting the lack of clarity in the record.
Trump’s Potential Role in TikTok’s Future
Justice Kavanaugh probed whether President-elect Donald Trump could choose not to enforce the TikTok ban after his inauguration. Prelogar explained that presidents have discretion in enforcement but noted Trump would need to evaluate national security data first. Kavanaugh expressed doubt that a non-enforcement directive would assure companies like Apple and Google, as penalties for non-compliance are steep.
Justice Samuel Alito asked if the court could temporarily block the law before its January 19 implementation. Prelogar argued that TikTok’s First Amendment claims were unlikely to succeed, making such a delay unwarranted. Both sides were ready to argue the case Friday, she said, emphasizing the importance of national security.
First Amendment and Alternatives
The debate extended to whether banning TikTok infringes on First Amendment rights. TikTok’s lawyers argued that the platform’s algorithm optimizes content, and losing ByteDance’s algorithm would hurt users. Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok creators, asserted that concerns over content manipulation don’t justify limiting speech. Prelogar countered that the ban targeted China’s involvement, not specific speech.
TikTok’s team suggested less extreme measures, such as user warnings or data-sharing restrictions. Prelogar dismissed these ideas as insufficient, comparing generic disclosures to unhelpful warning labels.
Justice Alito questioned TikTok’s uniqueness, suggesting other platforms could fill the gap. Fisher noted competitors had failed to replicate TikTok’s success, underscoring the platform’s distinct value.
TikTok Users Face Uncertain Future
As justices deliberated, TikTok users contemplated life without the platform. Callie Goodwin, a South Carolina business owner, shared that TikTok drives 98% of her sales, including $30,000 during one holiday season. Losing TikTok, she said, could jeopardize her business. Meanwhile, college student Eli Benson viewed a potential ban as an opportunity to reduce social media use.
The court’s decision could reshape the digital landscape, impacting creators, businesses, and millions of users.