A lawyer for TikTok argued before the Supreme Court on Friday that a ban on the social network would violate TikTok’s and Americans’ First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court this morning heard arguments on whether to overturn or delay a law that could effectively ban TikTok in the U.S.
The bill, officially titled the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, gives TikTok parent company ByteDance until January 19, 2025 to divest its U.S. operations or face a ban in the country. Friday’s session comes just nine days before the sell-or-ban deadline.
TikTok’s lawyer, Noel Francisco, made it clear that the social network will essentially shut down on January 19 unless the Supreme Court intervenes. He also alluded to President-elect Donald Trump’s support for the app.
“The platform shuts down unless there’s a divestiture, unless President Trump exercises his authority to extend it,” Francisco said. “But, he can’t do that on January 19. On January 19, we still have President Biden. And on January 19, as I understand it, we shut down. It is possible that come January 20, 21st 22nd we might be in a different world. Again, that’s one of the reasons why I think it makes perfect sense to issue a preliminary injunction here, and simply buy everybody a little breathing space.”
Francisco argued that TikTok’s “For You” algorithm should be protected by free speech rights, as it represents the company’s editorial desecration over the content it distributes.
When asked if the problem with the sell-or-ban law is the limited timeframe to divest the social network, Francisco argued that a divesture of the app would not be feasible under any timeline. TikTok has continuously argued that a sale is impossible because China would prevent the export of its algorithm. Francisco also claimed that TikTok would be a fundamentally different service if it didn’t have access to global creator content.
In addition, Francisco argued that a new version of TikTok in the U.S. with a new algorithm would prohibit any kind of coordination with ByteDance’s global team of engineers and that a new version would have completely different content. Plus, he claimed that it would take years to reconstruct a brand new team of engineers and create a new version.
Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer representing TikTok content creators, argued that the law violates their rights as well and that they have the right to work with the publisher of their choice.
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear ByteDance and TikTok’s challenge to the sell-or-ban law, despite concerns from the Department of Justice that a delay would pose a continuing threat to national security. A week after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, attorneys representing President-elect Donald Trump asked the court to pause the law.
In a filing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the sell-or-ban deadline, which comes one day before his inauguration, is “unfortunate timing,” and interferes with his “ability to manage the United States’ foreign policy.”
Although Trump was the one to initiate calls to ban the app during his first term, he took a different approach during his 2024 campaign and vowed to save the app if elected.
President Biden signed the sell-or-ban law back in April 2024. The bill followed years of allegations from the U.S. government that TikTok’s ties to China pose a national security risk and that it exposes Americans’ sensitive information to the Chinese government.
If ByteDance fails to sell the platform by January 19, it will be illegal for app stores and internet hosting services to distribute the social network.
