Petitioners: TikTok Inc., U.S. TikTok users, and associated entities.
Respondent: Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General.
Court: U.S. Supreme Court, reviewing decisions from the D.C. Circuit.
Date of Decision: January 17, 2025.
Key Issues
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act affects U.S. operations of TikTok, requiring severance from Chinese control by January 19, 2025.
Petitioners argue the Act violates the First Amendment, particularly affecting expressive activities.
TikTok Platform Details
TikTok allows users to create and share short videos using a proprietary algorithm.
Operated in the U.S. by TikTok Inc., a subsidiary of ByteDance Ltd., headquartered in China.
ByteDance is subject to Chinese laws that could require cooperation in intelligence efforts.
Government's National Security Concerns
Historical executive actions to address TikTok’s data collection and potential manipulation by the Chinese government.
Concerns over data collection practices and potential use by China for espionage.
Legislative Response
Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act prohibits U.S. services to distribute/maintain TikTok unless divested from Chinese control.
The Act targets applications operated by entities controlled by foreign adversaries, impacting apps with over 1 million users.
Court's Analysis
First Amendment Scrutiny
The Act was assumed to burden expressive activities, thus subject to First Amendment scrutiny.
The Court assessed whether the Act was content-based or content-neutral.
Content-Neutral Justification: Focused on national security, specifically data protection, not on the content of speech on TikTok.
Facial Neutrality: The Act applies equally without regard to speech content.
Intermediate Scrutiny Application
Government's Interest: Preventing China from collecting extensive data on U.S. users is significant.
Tailoring: The Act is deemed narrowly tailored to address this concern without unduly restricting more speech than necessary.
Conclusion
The Act was upheld as constitutional under the First Amendment.
The provisions were justified by the Government’s interest in national security, given the potential for data misuse by a foreign adversary.
The judgment of the D.C. Circuit was affirmed, maintaining the conditions on TikTok’s operations in the U.S.
Separate Opinions
Justice Sotomayor: Concurs in part, emphasizing the expressive activities of TikTok are clearly burdened and thus require First Amendment scrutiny.
Justice Gorsuch: Concurs in judgment, expressing concerns over the pace and the consideration of secret evidence, yet recognizing the compelling national security interest.