The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to hear TikTok’s case challenging a law requiring its China-based parent company to divest of the app by Jan. 19, 2025.
The court will hear oral arguments on Jan. 10, 2025.
TikTok had challenged the divestment law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and a three-judge panel in federal court had upheld the law earlier this month.
TikTok then appealed to the high court asking for a pause of the Jan. 19 deadline and asking it to treat its petition as one for review.
The Supreme Court wrote on Dec. 18 that it will hear arguments in the case before deciding whether to pause the deadline.
When President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) into law, it started a 270-day countdown for ByteDance to divest of TikTok or else stop operating the app in the United States. The law targets apps owned or controlled by foreign adversaries, in this case, the Chinese communist regime.
The law also allows the president to issue a one-time extension of a maximum of 90 days.
President-elect Donald Trump has suggested he can facilitate a sale of TikTok, which would prevent what TikTok calls a “ban.” TikTok is arguing the deadline should be paused so the new administration can make the call.
The Justice Department argued the law did not violate the First Amendment because it targeted ownership by a foreign adversary for national security reasons, and that it did not target content.
The Supreme Court directed parties to argue on “whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.”
The parties have a Dec. 27 deadline to file opening briefs, and a Jan. 3, 2025, deadline for reply briefs. Amicus briefs have a Dec. 27 deadline. Oral arguments will last two hours.
TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, and a group of TikTok users argued that PAFACA was used to single out and target a specific speech platform and does not treat other apps equally.
The petitioners argued that data collection and national security are not the sole reasons for the law, citing the delayed implementation and comments made by lawmakers about TikTok content and concerns over foreign influence.
“Even if Congress has a legitimate concern that a U.S. entity’s speech is covertly on behalf of, or manipulated by, a foreign government, the First Amendment still prohibits an outright ban,” the petition reads.
Petitioners argued that the Supreme Court has consistently held that “disclosure” is the typical remedy to “misleading sources of speech,” such as labeling the content as information of foreign origin.
