A federal appeals court on Friday left in place a mid-January deadline in a federal law requiring TikTok to be sold or face a ban in the United States, rejecting a request made by the company to halt enforcement until the Supreme Court reviews its challenge of the statute. Attorneys for TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. It’s unclear if the nation’s highest court will take up the case, though some legal experts have said they expect the justices to weigh in due to the types of novel questions it raises about social media, national security and the First Amendment. TikTok is also looking for a potential lifeline from President-elect Donald Trump, who promised to “save” the short-form video platform during the presidential campaign.

Attorneys for TikTok and ByteDance had requested the injunction after a panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with the U.S. government and rejected their challenge to the law. The court rejected that request on Friday, calling it “unwarranted.” “The petitioners have not identified any case in which a court, after rejecting a constitutional challenge to an Act of Congress, has enjoined the Act from going into effect while review is sought in the Supreme Court,” said the court’s order, which was unsigned. The statute, which was signed by President Joe Biden earlier this year, requires ByteDance to sell TikTok to an approved buyer due to national security concerns or face a ban in the U.S. The U.S. has said it sees TikTok as a national security risk because ByteDance could be coerced by Chinese authorities to hand over U.S. user data or manipulate content on the platform for Beijing’s interests.

TikTok has denied those claims and has argued that the government’s case rests on hypothetical future risks instead of proven facts. In the request filed this week, attorneys for TikTok and ByteDance had asked for a “modest delay” in enforcement of the law so that the Supreme Court could review the case and the incoming Trump administration could “determine its position” on the matter. If the law is not overturned, the two companies have said that the popular app will shut down by Jan. 19, just a day before Trump takes office again. More than 170 million American users would be affected, the companies have said. The Justice Department had opposed TikTok’s request for a pause, saying in a court filing this week that the parties had already proposed a schedule that was “designed for the precise purpose” of allowing Supreme Court review of the law before it took effect. The appeals court issued its Dec. 6 ruling on the matter in line with that schedule, the Justice Department filing said.

TikTok on Monday asked the Supreme Court to block a law that could ban the video-based social media app, which has millions of American users. At issue is a bipartisan measure passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden that would go into effect on Jan. 19, the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, unless the justices intervene. The law, called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, would require TikTok's Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the platform to an American company or face a ban. TikTok has challenged the law, saying it violates its free speech rights under the First Amendment. "The Act will shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration," TikTok's lawyers wrote in the court filing. "This, in turn, will silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern," they added. TikTok asked the Supreme Court to act by Jan. 6.

"Today, TikTok is asking the court to do what it has traditionally done in free speech cases: apply the most rigorous scrutiny to speech bans and conclude that it violates the First Amendment," company spokesman Michael Hughes said in a statement. If the Supreme Court temporarily blocks the law, it would tee up a final decision from the justices on whether the law passes constitutional muster. The court could expedite consideration of the case, meaning it could issue a final ruling within months. If the justices reject TikTok's application, the law would go into effect as planned. TikTok could still seek to have the high court review the law while it is in place, but the justices would already have sent a signal that they think the company is unlikely to prevail. The federal government has defended the law on national security grounds, saying there are concerns about the Chinese government's influence over the app.

TikTok, as well as eight individual users and Based Politics Inc., a conservative group that uses TikTok, all filed separate challenges saying the law violates their free speech rights, too. The individual challengers filed their own application at the Supreme Court. For people who rely on TikTok, the ban would be "devastating to their livelihoods, their communities, and their ability to express themselves and hear the ideas of their choosing," their lawyers wrote. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law, despite finding that it did implicate the First Amendment and needed to be reviewed very closely. Applying court precedent, the three-judge panel concluded that the law served a compelling government interest and was sufficiently narrowly tailored to further that interest. The appeals court found that the government's national security justifications, including concerns that the Chinese government could access data about American users and potentially manipulate content on the app, were legitimate.

TikTok was launched in the U.S. in 2018 and has become increasingly popular, now claiming 170 million American users. Its algorithm provides users with streams of short-form video content that adjusts based on their interests. There were national security concerns from the beginning, with Trump at one point seeking to ban it. Trump has since equivocated, saying during the recent election that he could "save TikTok." Trump said Monday he has a "warm spot" in his heart for TikTok when he was asked about the law. He was also scheduled to meet with TikTok's CEO, Shou Zi Chew, at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida on Monday, according to a source familiar with the meeting. The company has the backing of civil liberties groups that have joined the legal fight on free speech grounds.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear arguments next month over the constitutionality of the federal law that could ban TikTok in the United States if its Chinese parent company doesn’t sell it. The justices will hear arguments Jan. 10 about whether the law impermissibly restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment. The law, enacted in April, set a Jan. 19 deadline for TikTok to be sold or else face a ban in the United States. The popular social media platform has more than 170 million users in the U.S.

It’s unclear how quickly a decision might come. But the high court still could act after the arguments to keep the law from taking effect pending a final ruling, if at least five of the nine justices think it’s unconstitutional. Lawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance had urged the justices to step in before Jan. 19. The high court also will hear arguments from content creators who rely on the platform for income and some TikTok users. The timing of the arguments means that the outgoing Biden administration’s Justice Department will make the case in defense of the law that passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed by Democratic President Joe Biden in April.

The fate of a law that would likely ban social media platform TikTok in the United States goes before the Supreme Court on Friday as the justices consider whether to block it. The nine justices on the conservative-majority court are hearing oral arguments from lawyers for TikTok, some of its users and the Biden administration, with at least a preliminary decision likely in days, if not hours. The law in question, enacted with broad bipartisan support, requires China-based TikTok owner ByteDance to divest itself of the company by Jan. 19, the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. If no sale takes place, the platform used by millions of Americans would be banned. TikTok and some of its users sued to block the measure, saying it violates their free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment. The court is weighing those arguments against the government’s defense of the law on national security grounds over concerns that the Chinese government could exert influence over the platform. Adding further complexity, the court could quickly issue an order saying whether it will provisionally block the law before it issues a final ruling on the free speech question. During the oral arguments, Noel Francisco, an attorney for TikTok and its parent company,

ByteDance, argued that forcing a divestiture of TikTok was comparable to shutting down The Washington Post if the Chinese government forced Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ companies in China to promote Chinese policy. He also denied that China has direct influence over the source code of TikTok as it operates in the U.S and said that a divestiture would prevent TikTok from being able to operate. "There's a global team of engineers, some in China, some in Europe, and some in the United States that update and maintain the source code," Francisco said. "A qualified divestiture would prohibit any kind of coordination with that global team of engineers." Francisco also said that the law was a content-based speech restriction, with the content being the TikTok algorithm. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the forced divestiture implicates TikTok's First Amendment rights, regardless of how feasible it is to divest or how long it takes, because TikTok can continue to operate with an algorithm. “Your stronger argument, or at least the one that most interested me, was this argument of, ‘Look, if the government is doing something specifically for the purpose of changing the content that people see, that has to be subject to strict scrutiny,” Sotomayor said. “I don’t see that as affecting TikTok as opposed to affecting ByteDance.” When asked to provide precedent of corporate structure regulation being treated as a direct regulation of express conduct, Francisco said the TikTok is largely unprecedented. He said the national security risk posed by TikTok does not justify the law. "I'm not aware of any time in American history where the Congress has tried to shut down a major speech platform," Francisco said. If TikTok loses the case, Francisco said, "it will go dark" on Jan. 19. He suggested a preliminary injunction could "buy everybody a little breathing space." Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney for TikTok content creator Brian Firebaugh, said that his client's First Amendment speech rights were impeded by the law, because creators have a right to work with the publisher of their choice.

"Congress doesn't care about what's on TikTok," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "They don't care about the expression, that's shown by the remedy. They're not saying TikTok has to stop. They're saying China has to stop controlling TikTok." Fisher said that TikTok's unique algorithmic design allows his client and other "ordinary American citizens" to build large platforms and have their voices heard. Other social media platforms have been unsuccessful in replicating the environment TikTok offers, Fisher said, which would put TikTok creators at a disadvantage if the app became unavailable and they lost their largest audiences. The case has a fraught and complicated political history. While the ban was enacted with bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden, Trump has flip-flopped on the issue. During his first administration, he threatened to ban TikTok, but he later indicated support for it during the election campaign, citing his own prominence on the platform. He recently met with the company’s CEO. Trump filed an unusual brief at the Supreme Court asking the justices to temporarily block the law so that when he takes office, he can “pursue a political resolution” to the dispute.

The law includes a provision that allows for the president to grant a one-time extension of 90 days if he determines that there’s a path to divestiture and “significant progress” toward executing it. There are have been no public signs that such a sale is likely. On Thursday, a consortium in which billionaire Frank McCourt is involved said it was making an offer. TikTok, as well as eight individual users and Based Politics Inc., a conservative group that uses TikTok, all filed separate challenges saying the law violates their free speech rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law, despite finding that it did implicate the First Amendment and needed to be reviewed very closely. The three-judge panel concluded that the law served a compelling government interest and was sufficiently narrowly tailored to further that interest. The appeals court found that the government’s national security justifications, including concerns that the Chinese government could access data about American users and potentially manipulate content on the app, were legitimate. TikTok’s lawyers argued in court papers filed at the Supreme Court that while Congress clearly has an interest in protecting national security, the menu of options available “does not include suppressing the speech of Americans because other Americans may be persuaded.” The government did not even attempt to resolve its national security concerns by an alternative approach that would not violate free speech rights, they added. TikTok’s supporters at the court include a cross-ideological array of public interest groups, including the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute, that have joined the fight on free speech grounds.

The job of defending the law falls to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar just a few days before she will leave her position. In court papers, she argued among other things that the law does not even implicate the First Amendment, saying the potential ban “addresses the serious threats to national security posed by the Chinese government’s control of TikTok, a platform that harvests sensitive data about tens of millions of Americans and would be a potent tool for covert influence operations by a foreign adversary.” The law does not place any restrictions on speech but instead prevents a “foreign adversary” from controlling it, she added. Even if there are free speech concerns, they are minimal because the restrictions are not focused on suppressing specific speech based on what is being said or who is saying it, Prelogar said. The federal government has the backing of Montana and 21 other states as well as former national security officials. TikTok was launched in the U.S. in 2018 and has become increasingly popular, now claiming 170 million American users. The algorithm provides users with streams of short-form video content that adjust based on their interests.

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. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed. It is so ordered.

The USA’s cult of dumbassery has a rich and storied history, with new episodes released constantly.

The Apple support document lists the apps besides TikTok that are affected, such as Marvel Snap, Lemon8 and CapCut. “If you already have these apps installed on your device, they will remain on your device. But they can’t be redownloaded if deleted or restored if you move to a new device. In-app purchases and new subscriptions are no longer possible,” Apple says. It also points out that if you’re visiting the U.S., you will be “unable to download, update, or make in-app purchases and new subscriptions inside ByteDance Ltd. apps while within the land or maritime borders of the United States.” Full functionality returns when you leave the States.