Challenge to TikTok Divestment Law Accepted by US Supreme Court

(VOR News) – TikTok, Under the U.S. constitutional free expression clause, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on Wednesday that a rule effectively banning TikTok is unconstitutional.

On January 10, the Supreme Court set a date for the case’s oral arguments. An estimated 170 million Americans use the app, and the law targeting it will go into force in nine days.

The measure would force ByteDance, TikTok’s parent firm in China, to either sell the program or stop supporting the app in the US. Google, Apple, and other platforms would have to do this.

In response to worries that TikTok’s Chinese ownership would pose a national security risk, Congress approved the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

On December 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the law, finding that the Department of Justice had “provided convincing evidence verifying that” the divestment rule is “specifically designed to safeguard national security.”

TikTok users and ByteDance filed lawsuits.

Which the Supreme Court reviewed Wednesday. These users include a rancher who creates short-form videos about agriculture, a lady who advocates for survivors of sexual assault, and a woman who makes films about mental health and fatherhood.

According to the company, users who make videos on TikTok would lose around $300 million in revenue as a result of the suspension, and small U.S. businesses that use the app for marketing would lose more than $1 billion in revenue the month after.

Two days after TikTok filed a petition seeking an injunction against the law that will take effect next month, the Supreme Court declared on Wednesday that it will review the company’s appeal.

TikTok submitted a motion contending that “this court is unlikely to uphold the serious constitutional issues posed by Congress’s unprecedented effort to target applicants and prohibit them from utilising one of the most significant platforms for speech in this country.”

In order to consider the appeal, the Supreme Court asked the lawyers for BytenDance, TikTok, and the Department of Justice to brief and discuss whether the legislation pertaining to TikTok “violates the First Amendment” of the Constitution.

However, the court did not grant an injunction to stop the law from going into force and instead said on January 10 that it was delaying its decision on the petition “pending oral argument.”

On January 19, the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the court may make a ruling on the injunction before the law goes into effect.

President Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew on Monday at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. On the same day, the business filed a request with the Supreme Court.

“We’ll examine TikTok,” Trump stated when asked about the ban earlier that day.

“You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump said, raising the possibility that the app helped him win over more young voters in the November election.

One of Trump’s staunchest backers is Jeff Yass, managing director and co-founder of Susquehanna International Group. ByteDance has seen significant investment from Susquehanna International Group.

In a petition filed with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a lawyer for Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican caucus leader, argued against TikTok’s request for an interim injunction against the Act.

The paperwork shows that “TikTok evidently anticipates that the incoming administration of Trump will be more empathetic to its circumstances than the incumbent administration of President Joe Biden.”

Michael Fragoso, McConnell’s lawyer, insisted that the purpose of the injunction application was to “delay.” TikTok, according to Fragoso, makes “First Amendment arguments that are meritless and unsound.”

Fragoso stated that “Any delay caused by an injunction would be contrary to the public interest, even though the forced divestment may cause them irreparable harm.”

“At the conclusion of one administration, this is a typical litigation play, with a petitioner hoping that the next administration will provide a stay of execution,” the attorney wrote. “It should not be tolerated by this Court from foreign adversaries any more than it is from seasoned criminals.

SOURCE: CNBC

SEE ALSO:

Facebook Owner Fined 251 Million Euros For a Data Leak In 2018.

TikTok’s Last Effort Requests Supreme Court Action About U.S. Prohibition.