TikTok Ban Sparks Supreme Court Battle

On April 24, 2024, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, effectively banning TikTok in the United States unless its parent company, ByteDance, sells the platform to an approved buyer. The law states “to…protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd”.[1] Essentially, under this law, if ByteDance fails to sell TikTok within the specified timeframe, it will become illegal for app stores to distribute, maintain, or update the platform.

The Act was created in response to national security threats, as lawmakers and U.S. intelligence officials fear that the Chinese government could exploit ByteDance’s ownership to manipulate content viewed by American users or gain access to sensitive user data. In response, TikTok, ByteDance, and a coalition of TikTok content creators filed constitutional challenges to the Act in May 2024, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Act survived constitutional scrutiny. 

The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the First Amendment by unlawfully restricting a major platform for speech and expression, while also contending that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection principles by unfairly singling out TikTok for adverse treatment compared to other social media platforms. On December 6, 2024, the D.C. Circuit upheld the law, prompting TikTok, ByteDance, and the content creators to file emergency applications for a temporary injunction with the Supreme Court on December 16, 2024. The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute submitted an amicus brief in support of the injunction the following day. On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and set an expedited briefing schedule, also partly due to public outcry. The parties submitted their briefs on December 27, 2024, and the ACLU, EFF, and a larger group of advocacy organizations filed an additional amicus brief the same day.

In a per curiam (unsigned) opinion, the Court held that the challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate TikTok’s First Amendment rights. First, the Court determined that intermediate scrutiny applies because the law is content-neutral; it targets TikTok not based on the content of speech on the platform, but because of China’s ability to access sensitive data from 170 million U.S. users through its control of ByteDance.[2] While laws that discriminate among different speakers often raise First Amendment concerns, TikTok’s unique characteristics—its massive scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control—justify treating it differently from other platforms. The law does not reflect a preference for certain content or viewpoints, so it is subject to intermediate scrutiny. In other words, the law must further an important government interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression and not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further that interest.

Under that test, the law was sufficiently tailored to serve the government’s important interest in preventing China from collecting vast amounts of sensitive user data. Congress had substantial evidence of the extensive personal information TikTok collects and China's ability to compel Chinese companies to surrender data. Rather than banning TikTok outright, the law allows the platform to continue operating if ByteDance divests it to eliminate Chinese control. While there may be less restrictive alternatives like disclosure requirements or data-sharing restrictions, Congress retains latitude to choose its preferred regulatory solution as long as it does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve its goal.

This case is significant because it addresses the intersection of national security and free speech in the digital age. It sets a precedent for how the U.S. government can regulate foreign-controlled technology platforms while balancing constitutional rights. The ruling clarifies how courts will evaluate national security concerns concerning First Amendment protections and reinforces the government’s ability to impose restrictions based on security risks, even when they affect widely used communication platforms. As technology and geopolitics evolve, this case will likely influence future legal battles over digital platforms, data privacy, and government regulation of online speech.

Sources:

1. H.R. 7521, 118th Congress. (2024). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text.
2. TikTok Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S.(2025), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf