Tiktok v. US

NOTICE

• The document is subject to formal revision before publication in the United States Reports.

• Readers can notify the Reporter of Decisions for any errors.

Case Details

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States

• Case Numbers: Nos. 24–656 and 24–657

• Parties: TikTok Inc., et al. vs. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General

• Date: January 17, 2025

Context of the Decision

• Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act to take effect on January 19, 2025.

• This Act will prohibit services that support TikTok unless it is no longer under Chinese control.

• Petitioners argue whether the Act violates First Amendment rights.

• The Court emphasizes caution due to the novel technology and urgency of the situation.

TikTok Overview

• TikTok allows users to create and share short videos, launched in 2017.

• Over 170 million users in the U.S. and 1 billion worldwide.

• In 2023, 5.5 billion videos uploaded by U.S. users, totaling 13 trillion views.

• Personalized content feed generated by an algorithm based on user interactions.

• Content moderation includes automated removal of content violating community guidelines.

Legal Background and Previous Actions

National Security Concerns

• U.S. officials worry about national security relating to TikTok and China.

• Executive Order issued by President Trump in August 2020 regarding data security concerns.

• TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, required to assist Chinese government in intelligence operations.

• Legal challenges were mounted against the Executive Orders, culminating in a need for Congressional action.

The Protecting Americans Act

• Enacted to prevent services for foreign adversary-controlled apps,

• Violations lead to civil actions and penalties.

• Act specifically names ByteDance and TikTok as controlled applications.

• Two pathways for designation: direct naming and general designation based on significant threats to national security.

• Exemptions exist for divested applications.

Judicial Review and Arguments

Initial Court Decisions

• The D.C. Circuit denied petitions claiming that the Act does not violate First Amendment rights.

• The Act was analyzed under heightened scrutiny and found constitutional under national security arguments.

Court’s Assumptions and First Amendment Scrutiny

• The Court considers whether to apply First Amendment scrutiny.

• Argument thresholds concerned non-expressive activity but the impact on First Amendment rights was assessed.

• The argument that the Act effectively bans TikTok was acknowledged, as it affects the platform's ability to operate and users' expressive activities.

• The focus on preventing a foreign adversary's influence served as a distinct legal consideration.

Legal Categories of Regulation

• Differentiation between content-based and content-neutral laws was explored.

• Government interests considered content-neutral if they do not reference the content of the speech involved.

• The Act’s provisions were found not to be directly regulating expressive conducts or specific content.

The Government's Justification

Data Security Concerns

• The primary justification is to prevent China from harvesting sensitive data from U.S. users.

• TikTok’s data collection practices may enable espionage and corporate manipulation by China.

• Congressional judgment on the potential for data abuse was given deference by the Court.

Act’s Tailoring and Scope

• The Act imposes necessary constraints without being excessively burdensome.

• Conditional bans serve the government’s interests effectively while addressing security concerns.

Court's Conclusion

• TikTok includes special characteristics justifying its treatment under the Act.

• The Act does not violate First Amendment rights based on the established framework of national security and data protection.

• The judgment of the D.C. Circuit was affirmed.

Concurring Opinions

Justice Sotomayor

• Concurs with the majority on First Amendment implications and recognizes the burdens imposed by the Act.

Justice Gorsuch

• Raises concerns about the law's content neutrality and the categorical distinctions made in First Amendment considerations.

• Acknowledges the dramatic measures taken but concludes they are not unconstitutional based on the current threats presented.