The two sides in the high court clash over the measure that could shut down TikTok presented their written closing arguments on Friday, strongly disputing China’s influence over the site and the role the First Amendment should play in evaluating the law.
Their briefs, filed under an exceptionally brief timeline set by the justices last month, were part of a high-stakes standoff over the government’s insistence that ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, sell the app’s U.S. operations or shut down. The Supreme Court, in an attempt to resolve the case before the January 19 deadline set by law, is scheduled to hear arguments in a special session next Friday.
The court ruling, which could come this month, will decide the fate of a powerful and widespread cultural phenomenon that uses a sophisticated algorithm to provide users with a personalized collection of short video clips. TikTok, especially for younger generations, has become a leading source of information and entertainment.
“The Court has rarely confronted the issue of free speech that concerns so many people,” Brief filed on Friday He said on behalf of a group of TikTok users. “170 million Americans regularly use TikTok to communicate, entertain themselves, and follow news and current events. If the government prevails here, users in America will lose access to the billions of videos on the platform.
The summaries included only cursory or indirect references to President-elect Donald J. Trump Unusual request Last week the Supreme Court temporarily put the law on hold so he could address the matter once he takes office.
The deadline set by law to sell or shut down TikTok is January 19, the day before Trump’s inauguration.
“This unfortunate timing conflicts with President Trump’s ability to conduct U.S. foreign policy and seek a solution to protect national security and save the social media platform that provides a popular outlet for 170 million Americans,” his brief said. To exercise their fundamental First Amendment rights.
The law allows the president to extend the deadline by 90 days in limited circumstances. But that provision does not appear to be enforceable, because it requires the president to certify to Congress that significant progress has been made toward a sale supported by “relevant binding legal agreements.”
Tik Tok summary He stressed that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans’ access to the speech of foreign opponents, even if it is propaganda. The alternative to outright censorship, they wrote, is a legal requirement to disclose the source of speech.
“Disclosure is a time-tested, less restrictive alternative to address concerns that the public is misled about the source or nature of speech received — including in foreign affairs and national security contexts,” TikTok’s brief said.
The users’ brief echoed this point. “The most our customs and case law allows is the requirement to disclose foreign influence, so that people have full information to decide what to believe,” she said.
The government said this approach would not work. “Such general and obvious disclosure would be patently ineffective,” Elizabeth B. Prelogar, US Attorney, He wrote on Friday.
In a brief filed last week in the case, TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656, the government said foreign propaganda could be addressed without violating the Constitution.
“The First Amendment would not have required our nation to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of American radio stations (or other communications channels and critical infrastructure) during the Cold War, nor would it require us to tolerate it either,” the brief said. Ownership and control of TikTok by a foreign adversary today.
User feed disagreed with this statement. “Indeed, the United States tolerated the publication of the newspaper Pravda — a typical vehicle of Soviet propaganda — in this country at the height of the Cold War,” the brief said.
TikTok itself said the government was wrong to blame it for failing to “explicitly deny” the assertion that “ByteDance has engaged in censorship or manipulation of content on its platforms at the direction of” the Chinese government.
Censorship is a “charged term,” the TikTok feed said. However, the brief added: “Petitioners categorically deny that TikTok has removed or restricted content in other countries at China’s request.”