The popular social media platform TikTok could face a nationwide ban as early as this Sunday. On Friday, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal from TikTok’s owners, affirming a lower court’s ruling in favor of the federal ban on the app and stirring a whirlwind of speculation and concern among its millions of users.
In their appeal, the app’s owners argued that banning the app would violate the First Amendment. Documents reveal that the court delivered an unsigned unanimous opinion with no recorded dissents.
The Biden administration had raised alarms over the app, deeming it a “grave” national security concern, primarily because of its ownership by the Chinese internet giant ByteDance. Government officials recognized two primary national security concerns regarding the app.
According to CNN, one concern was that the Chinese government may leverage collected user information for coercive purposes. The second was that TikTok may facilitate the dissemination of content that aligns with the Chinese government’s agenda or serves as propaganda.
The Supreme Court recognized in its ruling the cultural significance of the app for millions of Americans.
“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. 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.”
The government’s strategy for enforcing the ban remains unclear, mainly because no historical precedent exists for banning a major social media platform.
After the decision was issued Friday, President-elect Donald Trump spoke to CNN, stating, “It ultimately goes up to me, so you’re going to see what I’m going to do.” Trump did not respond directly when asked if he planned to take measures to reverse the imminent ban. “Congress has given me the decision, so I’ll be making the decision,” he said.
Trump also told CNN that he has spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about the app, and they had a “great talk about TikTok and a great talk about many other subjects.”
The court noted in its decision that Trump had previously expressed a desire to impose a ban on TikTok, writing, “In August 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order finding that ‘the spread in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in [China] continues to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.’”
“President Trump determined that TikTok raised particular concerns, noting that the platform ‘automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users’ and is susceptible to being used to further the interests of the Chinese government.”
In a statement released on Friday, the Biden Administration indicated that the ban’s enforcement would be left to the incoming Trump Administration, which is set to take office on Monday.
“The Administration, like the rest of the country, has awaited the decision just made by the U.S. Supreme Court on the TikTok matter. President Biden’s position on TikTok has been clear for months, including since Congress sent a bill in overwhelming, bipartisan fashion to the President’s desk: TikTok should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership or other ownership that addresses the national security concerns identified by Congress in developing this law. 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.“
The original law allows the sitting president to extend the ban by 90 days, but only if there is evidence of a purchase in the works with significant progress made on the deal. In the past, ByteDance has repeatedly stated it does not plan to sell the platform.
TikTok CEO Shou Chew will join other prominent tech leaders on the dais at Trump’s inauguration, hinting at Trump’s possible openness to preserve the app’s future.
Several members of Congress have pushed for TikTok to be given more time to find a buyer. “It’s all about the money. If the price is right, the Chinese will sell it,” said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Others, like Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, suggest that China is preventing the app’s sale.
“I think somebody would buy it if China would sell it. That’s the problem. They’re preventing its sale. So, I predict somebody will buy it. It’s entirely up to Beijing. I mean, there are willing buyers.”
Despite there being no determined method of enforcement of the ban, TikTok has said it will likely make the app immediately inaccessible once the ban occurs. “We go dark. Essentially, the platform shuts down,” TikTok lawyer Noel Francisco told the Supreme Court last week.
According to Reuters, TikTok intends to implement a pop-up message for users attempting to access the app, directing them to a website containing details regarding the ban.
Civil rights and free-speech organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and PEN America have long opposed the ban. Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney at ACLU, wrote in a statement for the organization, “The law’s supporters have, at times, minimized the ban’s impact on the First Amendment, citing the mistaken belief that TikTok users can simply move to another platform.”
“Banning TikTok is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and un-American. If the Supreme Court allows the government to shut down an entire platform on such a flimsy evidentiary record, it would set a disturbing precedent for future government restrictions on online speech. It would also increase the risk that sweeping invocations of ‘national security’ will trump our constitutional rights.”
In its ruling, the court recognized that its decision could be perceived as narrow, noting that it may have reached a different conclusion in a comparable case, perhaps involving an American company.
“Data collection and analysis is a common practice in this digital age. But TikTok’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.”
The judges acknowledged that the case was monumental in the modern age, dealing with “new technologies” with “transformative capabilities.”
“This challenging new context counsels caution on our part. As Justice Frankfurter advised 80 years ago, in considering the application of established legal rules to the ‘totally new problems’ raised by the airplane and radio, we should take care not to ‘embarrass the future.’”
Moumita Basuroychowdhury is a Contributing Reporter at The National Digest. After earning an economics degree at Cornell University, she moved to NYC to pursue her MFA in creative writing. She enjoys reporting on science, business and culture news. You can reach her at moumita.b@thenationaldigest.com.
