On December 13, a federal appeals court rejected TikTok’s request to postpone a deadline mandating that it sever ties with its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, by January 19, 2025. This decision came shortly after TikTok filed its final appeal for a delay, asserting that the ruling violated First Amendment rights under the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA). This law, enacted in April, prohibits U.S.-operated apps from being owned by foreign adversaries, and TikTok contended that the ruling effectively prohibits its operation in the United States since the Chinese government would not allow the sale of TikTok or its core technology.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the legality of the law, asserting that it does not infringe upon First Amendment rights because it focuses on ownership rather than content. The Justice Department defended the ruling by stating that a bipartisan consensus among the nation’s government branches confirmed that TikTok posed a tangible national security risk. In compliance with the law, ByteDance must either divest its stake in TikTok or cease operations in the U.S. by the specified deadline, leading TikTok to seek an injunction from the Supreme Court to pause that countdown while challenging the law.
In its filing for an emergency injunction, TikTok claimed that enforcing the ban without a temporary halt would adversely impact the platform, disrupting thousands of jobs and livelihoods dependent on the app. The app characterized itself as “one of the most important speech platforms” in the country, arguing that a ban would have disastrous implications not only for the business but also for the creators who utilize the platform for their livelihoods. TikTok creators, such as Brian Firebaugh, underscored the law’s potential damage to their businesses, highlighting that TikTok was essential for promoting their products and connecting with their communities.
However, the Justice Department responded by downplaying TikTok’s claims of economic harm, emphasizing that the national security issues surrounding the app outweighed those concerns. The DOJ cited TikTok’s data-collection practices and the risks posed by the Chinese government’s surveillance efforts as valid concerns that justified the law. The court’s panel concluded that TikTok’s attempts to draw parallels to previous First Amendment rulings were unfounded, reiterating that their prior decision satisfied the constitutional standards.
In laying out its reasoning, the courtroom order emphasized that no precedent exists for a court to delay an Act of Congress after affirmatively denying a constitutional challenge. The judges also noted that TikTok and its proponents failed to present any new arguments that would warrant a unique consideration. Instead, they reiterated that the legal basis for the law was sound and that the urgency of national security concerns required adherence to the deadlines set forth in PAFACA.
Moving forward, it is possible for TikTok to appeal for an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court while continuing to contest the law. However, there is no assurance that the Supreme Court will choose to hear such a case. Should it decide to take up the matter, the implications of this decision could significantly impact the app’s future in the United States, potentially leading to a broader discussion on the balance between national security and the freedoms associated with social media platforms.
