Supreme Court Upholds Law That Bans TikTok If Its Chinese Parent Company Does Not Divest

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Jan. 15, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 turned away TikTok’s request to halt a federal law requiring indirect owner ByteDance to divest itself of the company by Jan. 19 or cease U.S. operations.

The nation’s highest court took action in the fast-tracked case seven days after oral arguments on Jan. 10 in TikTok Inc. v. Garland and its companion case, Firebaugh v. Garland.

The new court opinion, which held that the TikTok law does not violate the First Amendment, was unanimous and its author was not identified.

President-elect Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated on Jan. 20 and is himself a social media entrepreneur, had previously filed a brief asking the justices to stay the law to give him an opportunity to develop a political solution when he returns to the White House.

TikTok said in its emergency application that in 2023, about 170 million monthly U.S. users uploaded more than 5.5 billion videos that received upward of 13 trillion views, half of which occurred outside the United States. In the same year, U.S. users viewed content originating from abroad more than 2.7 trillion times.

President Joe Biden, who leaves office days from now, signed the law, called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, on April 24, 2024, after it was passed by bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate.

TikTok is operated in the United States by TikTok Inc., a U.S. company that Cayman Islands-based ByteDance Ltd. owns indirectly.

TikTok acknowledges that ByteDance owns subsidiaries in China and other nations but denies Chinese influence in its operations.

Supporters of the law in Congress say the Chinese regime has too much sway over TikTok. The law expresses concerns that Chinese officials may access and abuse the personal data of American TikTok users, using it to seek strategic advantage over the United States and disseminate propaganda.

In the opinion, the Supreme Court said Congress singled out TikTok and ByteDance because the social media platform’s “scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the Government’s national security concerns.”

“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the court said.

“But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch indicated they agreed with the court’s overall ruling but filed separate opinions expressing concerns about aspects of the ruling.

Sotomayor wrote that the law “implicates the First Amendment because our precedent leaves no doubt that it does.”

The court should have analyzed the applicability of the First Amendment to the law using a heightened standard of scrutiny, she added.

Courts use what is called the strict scrutiny test when reviewing legislative or executive branch enactments that are said to infringe on constitutional rights. A government interest is deemed compelling, and therefore in satisfaction of the test, when it is essential or necessary, as opposed to a matter of preference, choice, or discretion.

Gorsuch wrote he was uncertain if the law would accomplish its national security objectives.

“A determined foreign adversary may just seek to replace one lost surveillance application with another. As time passes and threats evolve, less dramatic and more effective solutions may emerge,” Gorsuch wrote.

“Even what might happen next to TikTok remains unclear. But the question we face today is not the law’s wisdom, only its constitutionality.”

Gorsuch wrote he was “pleased” the court didn’t take into account classified evidence the government provided to the court but not to the other side.

“Efforts to inject secret evidence into judicial proceedings present obvious constitutional concerns,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Dec. 13, 2024, ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found the law constitutional.

During the oral argument, TikTok attorney Noel Francisco said the law violates the First Amendment because it “singles out a single speaker for uniquely harsh treatment.”

Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress specifically found that ByteDance cooperates with China in manipulating content and that its cooperation is required by Chinese law.

“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Roberts asked.

“Congress doesn’t care about what’s on TikTok.”

Roberts added that the law does not say “TikTok has to stop.” The law says “the Chinese have to stop controlling TikTok.”

The White House reacted to the new ruling.

“Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

President-elect Trump said he is currently considering his options.

“It ultimately goes up to me, so you’re going to see what I’m going to do,” Trump told CNN.

“Congress has given me the decision, so I’ll be making the decision.”

Trump later commented on TruthSocial.

“The Supreme Court decision was expected, and everyone must respect it. My decision on TikTok will be made in the not too distant future, but I must have time to review the situation. Stay tuned!” he said.