The two sides in the momentous clash at the Supreme Court over a measure that could shut down TikTok delivered their closing written arguments Friday, examining China's influence over the site and the role the First Amendment should play in evaluating its strongly challenged the law.
Their briefs, filed under an exceptionally abbreviated schedule set by the justices last month, were part of a high-stakes showdown over the government's insistence that ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, suspend the app's operations in the United States would sell or close. In an effort to resolve the case before the Jan. 19 deadline, the Supreme Court will hear arguments at a special hearing next Friday.
The court's ruling, which could come this month, will decide the fate of a powerful and ubiquitous cultural phenomenon that uses a sophisticated algorithm to offer users a personalized series of short videos. TikTok has become a leading source of information and entertainment, especially for the younger generations.
“Rarely, if ever, has the court been confronted with a case about freedom of expression that is important to so many people,” said a brief filed Friday on behalf of a group of TikTok users. “170 million Americans regularly use TikTok to communicate, entertain themselves and follow news and current events. If the government gains the upper hand here, users in America will lose access to the platform's billions of videos.”
The letter made only passing or indirect reference to newly elected President Donald J. Trump's unusual request last week that the Supreme Court temporarily block the law so he can take up the case once he takes office.
The deadline set by law for the sale or closure of TikTok is January 19, the day before Trump's inauguration.
“This unfortunate timing,” his letter said, “impedes President Trump's ability to manage United States foreign policy and pursue a resolution to both protect national security and save a social media platform that popular vehicle for 170 million Americans. to exercise their core First Amendment rights.”
The law allows the president to extend the deadline by 90 days under limited circumstances. But that provision does not appear to apply because it requires the president to certify to Congress that significant progress has been made toward a sale backed by “relevant binding legal agreements.”
TikTok's letter emphasized that the First Amendment protects Americans' access to the speech of foreign adversaries, even if it is propaganda. The alternative to outright censorship, they wrote, is a legal requirement that the source of the speech be made public.
“Disclosure is the proven, least restrictive alternative to addressing concerns that the public is being misled about the source or nature of statements received – including in the context of foreign affairs and national security,” TikTok's letter said.
The user letter reiterated this point. “The maximum that our customs and case law allow,” the report said, “is a requirement to disclose foreign influence so that the people have full information to decide what to believe.”
The government said this approach would not work. “Such blanket, permanent disclosure would be patently ineffective,” Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. attorney general, wrote on Friday.
In a brief filed last week in TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656, the government said foreign propaganda may be addressed without violating the Constitution.
“The First Amendment would not have required our country to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of American radio stations (or other communications channels and critical infrastructure) during the Cold War,” the letter said, “nor does it require us to ownership and control of TikTok by a foreign adversary today.”
The user letter disputed this statement. “In fact,” the letter said, “the United States tolerated the publication of Pravda – the prototypical tool of Soviet propaganda – in this country at the height of the Cold War.”
TikTok itself said the government was wrong to blame it for its failure to “flatly deny” the claim that “ByteDance has engaged in censorship or content on its platforms manipulated at the direction of” the Chinese government.
Censorship is “a loaded term,” according to TikTok's letter. In any case, the letter added, “the petitioners flatly deny that TikTok has ever removed or restricted content in other countries at China's request.”
