The Supreme Court upheld a law that would ban TikTok in the U.S. Here’s why. | Global News Avenue

Washington — Supreme Court on Friday refuse challenge A new law requires TikTok to either sever ties with its Chinese parent company or be banned in the United States because it does not violate the First Amendment rights of the platform or its users.

high court unsigned decision The bill clears the way for the law, passed last April, to take effect at midnight Sunday, after the federal government raised concerns for years during the Trump and Biden administrations about the risks TikTok posed to national security.

In defending the law to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department pointed to two main national security grounds: objections to China’s collection of data from TikTok’s 170 million U.S. users and its alleged ability to manipulate content on the app to promote its geopolitical agenda. political interests.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling hinged on the first ground: China has access to vast amounts of information from U.S. users through the app and its parent company, Beijing-based ByteDance. The justices held that Congress did not violate the First Amendment by taking action to address the threat.

What the Supreme Court said in its ruling on TikTok ban

“The bill’s prohibition and divestiture requirements are intended to prevent China (a designated foreign adversary) from using its control of ByteDance Ltd. to obtain the personal data of U.S. TikTok users. This goal is consistent with important government interests under interlocutory review, ” the court said, citing the intermediate standard used by courts to evaluate a law’s constitutionality.

Under interlocutory review, the law being challenged must promote an important governmental interest and be closely related to that interest to be preserved. Its standards are less demanding than strict review (the highest level of judicial review) and more stringent than rational review (the lowest, most permissive level).

The court noted that TikTok “collects a vast amount of personal information from its users,” including location data and contact lists. The justices reiterated the government’s concerns that the information could allow China to track the locations of federal employees, create dossiers of information for blackmail and engage in corporate espionage.

The court’s opinion also cited congressional findings that companies can be required to hand over data to the Chinese government under Chinese law.

“The government has every reason to single out TikTok,” the statement said.

The court went on to say that the law, known as the Protecting Americans from Applications Controlled by Foreign Adversaries Act, “sufficiently serves the government’s interest in preventing foreign adversaries from collecting vast amounts of sensitive data about the use of 170 million Americans.” Tik Tok. “

The court said its provisions were “clearly for the government’s data collection interests” and did not go beyond what was needed to address concerns about China’s access to Americans’ personal information.

The court noted that the government was interested in preventing China from controlling TikTok’s powerful recommendation algorithm and its ability to covertly change content shown on the app for U.S. users, but said the record in the case “amply supports the belief that Congress would pass legislation based solely on data collection grounds.” Impugned Clause.”

The court said ByteDance uses data collected from TikTok to train the app’s recommendation algorithms and would not agree to stop collecting U.S. users’ data or sending it to China, according to Congress and the Biden administration. The government also noted the challenge of monitoring data sharing between TikTok and its parent company.

“In these circumstances, we find that the government’s reasons for data collection are sufficient to sustain the challenged provisions,” the court said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a separate opinion concurring with the case’s outcome but disagreeing with the court’s legal reasoning. He wrote that the court was right not to support the government’s goal of preventing China’s alleged clandestine manipulation of content.

“One person’s ‘covert content manipulation’ is another person’s ‘editorial discretion,'” he wrote. “Journalists, publishers and speakers of all kinds often make less than transparent judgments about what stories to tell and how to tell them. There is no question that the First Amendment has a lot to say about the right to make those choices.”

Gorsuch concluded his argument by stating, “It’s one thing to talk to and support foreign adversaries. It’s another thing to allow foreign adversaries to spy on Americans.”

The law involved in this case requires TikTok to either divest itself from ByteDance or cut ties with U.S. app stores and hosting services starting on January 19. President-elect Donald Trump will be sworn in for a second term on January 20. have urge court The law was suspended to allow him to seek a “political solution” once he takes office, but said after the ruling that he “must have time to review the situation”.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Biden administration will not enforce the law starting Sunday, leaving it to the incoming Trump administration.

“President Biden’s position on TikTok has been clear for months, including since Congress overwhelmingly and bipartisanly sent a bill to the president’s desk: TikTok should remain available to Americans, but only Congress enacted this law under U.S. ownership or other ownership that would address the identified national security concerns,” she said. “Given the absolute facts of timing, this government recognizes that action to implement this law must be the responsibility of the next government that takes office on Monday.”