Business
Supreme Court Renders TikTok Ban Decision: A Game-Changer in Social Media Regulation

The Supreme Court has paved the way for a potential ban on TikTok, endorsing strong legislative actions against the app due to its Chinese ownership. Friday’s unsigned opinion emphasizes that while TikTok serves as a platform for 170 million Americans, Congress has deemed divestiture necessary to address significant national security concerns tied to data collection practices.
The court clarified that Congress’s interest in regulating TikTok was rooted in issues of foreign control and data privacy, not free speech. This ruling, they stated, should be regarded as a unique consideration, reflecting the specific risks associated with TikTok’s extensive data practices and Chinese government ties.
Without the Supreme Court’s intervention, a law set to take effect on January 19 would ban foreign adversary-controlled apps like TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance. This action follows the passage of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which targets applications associated with nations designated as foreign adversaries by the U.S. government.
The law stems from broader concerns about the Chinese government’s oversight of ByteDance under China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which mandates cooperation with state intelligence efforts. Furthermore, a recent data security law has extended Chinese governmental authority over data outside its borders, raising alarm within the U.S.
In response, ByteDance has contested allegations regarding Chinese access to user data, asserting that TikTok Inc., based in California, operates independently, with its data processed on Oracle servers located in the U.S. TikTok also argues that banning the platform infringes on the First Amendment rights of its users.
The D.C. Circuit previously upheld the legislation, deeming it narrowly tailored to the government’s security interests. Facing an imminent enforcement date, TikTok pursued an urgent review from the Supreme Court.
As the enforcement date neared, the Supreme Court held an unusual argument session to assess the legality of the ban. While the Biden administration supported the law, President-elect Trump hinted at a different approach, indicating potential changes under the incoming administration.
Contrary to employing the highest level of scrutiny common in similar cases, the court determined that the law met intermediate scrutiny standards. TikTok’s claims regarding China’s unlikely coercion did not convince the justices, who noted substantial evidence of Chinese data collection on U.S. citizens.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed dissent, advocating for stricter scrutiny of the law but ultimately concluded it survived the First Amendment evaluation. Likewise, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the appropriateness of intermediate scrutiny, noting that current litigation obscured the constitutional issues involved.
Nevertheless, Gorsuch concurred with the need to uphold the ban. He acknowledged the government’s national security worries as valid, while also raising concerns about whether the law’s drastic measures would effectively address those threats.
In a recent development, President Biden indicated a desire to postpone the ban on TikTok, while President-elect Trump has committed to “saving” the app. Both presidents possess the authority to delay enforcement for 270 days if a divestment agreement is in the works, though the legal viability of such a maneuver remains uncertain.