Supreme Court Justices Question TikTok’s Free Speech Defense Amid Potential Ban

Supreme Court justices posed pointed questions to TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, during Friday’s hearing over a law that could lead to the sale or ban of the popular short-video app in the United States by January 19. The case pits free speech protections under the First Amendment against national security concerns raised by the government.

The law, passed with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by outgoing President Joe Biden, is being defended by the Biden administration. TikTok, ByteDance, and some app users argue the law violates constitutional free speech rights and have appealed a lower court ruling upholding the measure.

During the hearing, the nine justices examined the balance between TikTok’s claims of being a vital platform for American free speech and the government’s concerns that the app could be exploited by the Chinese government for espionage or influence operations. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar warned that TikTok’s vast data collection poses a national security risk, potentially allowing China to engage in harassment, recruitment, or covert manipulation.

TikTok’s attorney, Noel Francisco, emphasized the platform’s role as one of the most popular speech venues in the United States. He warned that the app would effectively “go dark” on January 19 unless ByteDance divests ownership or the deadline is extended. Francisco urged the court to issue a temporary pause on the law, allowing for further deliberation and potential political resolution once President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20.

Some justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito, explored the possibility of a temporary administrative stay on the law. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether TikTok’s U.S. operations truly hold independent free speech rights, suggesting that restrictions on ByteDance’s ownership may not necessarily equate to restrictions on TikTok’s speech.

Francisco countered that Congress’s action sets a troubling precedent, arguing it could pave the way for the government to shut down platforms based on political preferences without First Amendment scrutiny.

The Biden administration has maintained that the law targets foreign control of the platform rather than the speech itself. Prelogar defended the measure as a necessary step to protect Americans’ data and national security.

TikTok, which employs 7,000 people in the U.S., warned that a ban would harm its user base, content creators, advertisers, and employees, as well as chill innovation on platforms like its algorithm-driven content system.

As tensions rise between the U.S. and China, the outcome of the case could have significant implications for trade, technology, and digital speech rights.