The Supreme Court appears poised to uphold a law that bans TikTok in the US over national security concerns unless its China-based parent company sells the platform ahead of a 19 January deadline.
The Court’s nine justices heard from lawyers representing TikTok, and content creators that the ban would be a violation of free speech protections for the platform’s more than 170 million users in the US.
The US government argued that without a sale, TikTok could be used by China as a tool for spying and political manipulation.
A decision by the top court has to be made within days. President-elect Donald Trump – who returns to the White House in just over a week – now argues against the ban.
The law requires TikTok’s parent company ByteDance to sell it in the US or cease operations on 19 January. The company has said it will not sell the short-form video platform.
Congress passed the law with support from both the Democratic and Republican parties – a moment that marked the culmination of years of concern about the widely popular platform, which is known for its viral videos and traction among young people.
The legislation does not forbid use of the app, but would require tech giants such as Apple and Google to stop offering it and inhibit updates, which analysts suggest would kill it over time.
TikTok has repeatedly denied any potential influence by the Chinese Communist Party and has said the law violates the First Amendment free speech rights of its users.
Noel Francisco, a former US solicitor general appearing for the platform, stressed the ban on the most popular speech platform for Americans could also open the door to a dangerous form of censorship.
He argued that “the government cannot restrict speech in order to protect us from speech”.
“That’s precisely what this law does from beginning to end.”
A representative for platform creators argued they should be free to use the publisher of their choice.
Jeffrey L Fisher, a Stanford University law professor representing creators who sued over the law, told the court on Friday that the country has historically faced “ideological campaigns by foreign adversaries”.
But he said that under the First Amendment, mere ideas do not represent a national security threat.
Justice department lawyer Elizabeth B Prelogar told the court that ByteDance’s ties to the Chinese government made it a national security risk.
She told the court that Beijing “could weaponise TikTok at any time to harm the United States”.
During nearly three hours of arguments, the nine justices returned time and again to the national security concerns that gave rise to the law in the first place, while also probing free speech questions.
“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked TikTok lawyer Mr Francisco.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh drilled into concerns the US government has raised about the data the app collects on its users and how that data might be used.
The risks seem like a “huge concern for the future of the country”, he said.
