WASHINGTON − This month, the Supreme Court is evaluating whether TikTok can be banned in the U.S., a case balancing crucial issues of free speech against national security concerns.

With 170 million users in the U.S., many TikTok users claim that this case is significant, representing one of the most substantial free speech issues before the court.

The Biden administration, advocating for a law that demands TikTok sever its connections with the Chinese government or face a ban, argues that the app poses a severe threat, potentially enabling China to collect information on Americans or manipulate content to influence public opinion in the U.S.

Attorneys representing TikTok and a collective of its creators argued on Friday that this law would restrict users from accessing their favorite platform, thus violating the right to free speech. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stated that as long as TikTok is owned by China-based ByteDance, the national security of the U.S. remains in jeopardy.

If the Supreme Court does not take action, major platforms like Google and Apple may have to remove TikTok from their services after January 19.

Stay tuned for real-time updates and coverage.

Competitors of TikTok Experience Minor Gains on Wall Street

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, along with Snap Inc., which owns Snapchat, saw increases of 0.8% and 3.6%, respectively, while the S&P 500 dropped by 1.5%. Both firms feature their short-form video services that rival TikTok.

However, Alphabet, the parent company of Google, which also presents short videos through YouTube Shorts, fell by 1.1% that day.

−Bailey Schulz

TikTok’s Lawyer: Justices Recognize the Importance of the Case

Attorney Noel Francisco for TikTok addressed reporters at the National Press Club.

“The discussions seemed to go well, and the justices were deeply engaged,” he remarked. “They understand how significant this case is for American citizens and for First Amendment rights overall.”

“The justices rigorously questioned both parties involved, showcasing their understanding of the case’s implications. We are hopeful for a positive outcome,” added Francisco, who previously served as the U.S. solicitor general during Donald Trump’s presidency.

TikTok and its creators are asking the court to either overturn the law that mandates ByteDance to divest its U.S. operations or to delay the January 19 deadline for the upcoming Trump administration to reach a resolution that would not end TikTok’s presence in the U.S.

−Rebecca Morin

The Economic Significance of TikTok in the U.S.

Last year, TikTok reported that it added $24.2 billion to the U.S. GDP and supported 224,000 jobs throughout 2023.

“TikTok provides small and medium-sized businesses with an avenue to thrive through both organic marketing and investments in paid advertising and collaborations with creators,” stated the report.

In November, Reuters reported that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, assessed its value at about $300 billion, although the valuation specifically for TikTok’s U.S. operations remains unclear.

−Bailey Schulz

Trump’s Evolving Stance on TikTok

After advocating for a TikTok ban during his presidency, President-elect Donald Trump has now indicated he may seek to preserve the app.

This shift might be linked to TikTok’s role in connecting him with younger voters; his account boasts 14.8 million followers as of Friday. Influences from individuals connected with the company might have also contributed to this change, as reported by YSL News.

Less than two weeks after meeting with billionaire Jeff Yass, a significant conservative donor with financial interests in ByteDance, Trump mentioned in a March 2024 CNBC interview that there are “many good users and a lot of positive aspects” associated with TikTok. Yass’ trading firm had acquired a considerable stake in ByteDance in 2012.

In 2020, Trump expressed concerns regarding Chinese ownership, claiming it granted the Chinese government access to “Americans’ personal and proprietary information—potentially allowing China to track the locations of federal employees and contractors, build dossiers for blackmail, and engage in corporate espionage.”

−Bailey Schulz

The Effectiveness of TikTok’s Algorithm

TikTok has managed to capture the attention of approximately 170 million Americans through its algorithm-enhanced “For You” page.

A blog post from TikTok in 2020 indicated that it analyzes diverse user interactions to determine users’ interests and customize the app’s content. Factors include likes, shares, follows, time spent watching videos, hashtags used, and device settings like language and location preferences.

The brief nature of videos allows TikTok’s algorithm access to vast amounts of data. For context, while a single YouTube video may take about 10 minutes to view, a TikTok user can quickly scroll through many videos in the same span of time, providing the platform’s algorithm with rich input.

According to a post on TikTok’s blog, “Every new interaction contributes to the system’s understanding of your preferences, enabling it to recommend relevant content. Thus, the most effective way to customize your For You feed is simply by engaging with and enjoying the app.”

Additionally, TikTok intentionally shows users content beyond their usual interests, as part of its recommendation strategy, as stated by the company.

However, TikTok’s method has faced backlash. A December 2022 report by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate accused the platform of exposing young users to harmful content related to eating disorders and self-harm.

−Bailey Schulz

Supreme Court Debates TikTok Ban Appeal

Both sides presented their arguments to the nine justices, after which the Supreme Court temporarily adjourned. TikTok’s legal team is set to address the media at 3 p.m. Eastern at the National Press Club.

Alito Considers Temporary Halt on TikTok Ban

Justice Samuel Alito raised the question of whether the court could place a temporary hold on the law set to enforce the TikTok ban on January 19.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stated that such a hold should only occur if TikTok is likely to prevail based on its First Amendment argument for the right to distribute its content. She emphasized that this wasn’t merely an executive decision; it involved bipartisan congressional support.

“In my view, the court lacks grounds for a temporary injunction unless it believes the petitioners have a strong chance on their First Amendment claim,” Prelogar remarked. “Honestly, I see no argument suggesting that likelihood.”

Alito further inquired if the court could halt the law for now. Prelogar indicated she would defer to the justices regarding their timing to decide but noted that both parties were ready to argue the matter on Friday.

“I think it is vital for congressional efforts and our national security to address the case and allow the statute to take effect,” Prelogar stated.

−Bart Jansen

Sotomayor: TikTok Ban Validity Regardless of Trump’s Enforcement

Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted that during his first term, President-elect Donald Trump attempted to mandate a divestment, even though he currently opposes the ban.

She expressed concern that a future president might opt not to enforce a law, allowing a company to disregard it. She stressed that this would still constitute a violation.

“Whatever actions the incoming president may take,” Sotomayor noted, “don’t alter that situation for the companies involved.”

−Maureen Groppe

Kavanaugh Questions Trump’s Potential Non-Enforcement of Ban

Justice Brett Kavanaugh explored whether President-elect Donald Trump—opponent of the ban—might choose not to enforce it once in office on January 20.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar indicated that presidents typically possess discretion in enforcement matters.

Nonetheless, Kavanaugh noted that this may not adequately reassure entities like Apple and Google regarding the law’s heavy penalties.

Prelogar contended that was not necessarily true.

However, she mentioned that Trump could seek to review all national security intelligence accumulated since his last presidency before making any decisions on enforcement.

−Maureen Groppe

Prelogar: Data Sharing by ByteDance is ‘Eye-Opening’

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted that the Biden administration had contemplated possible restrictions on ByteDance’s data sharing for several years before Congress enacted the law to impose a ban, concluding that it was impossible to create a true separation between TikTok in the U.S. and its Chinese parent company.

“That aspect was insufficiently highlighted in the briefs,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out.

Prelogar remarked that vast amounts of data are exchanged between TikTok and ByteDance to maintain the algorithm’s effectiveness in selecting the best videos for promotion. Under a confidential security arrangement proposed by ByteDance, she stated that a significant amount of data concerning Americans is transmitted back to China.

“It’s quite revealing,” said Prelogar. “It presents a significant vulnerability since once that data reaches China, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) can demand.”

that ByteDance should not reveal that information and must keep that assistance confidential.”

−Bart Jansen

Justice Department argues First Amendment isn’t violated

Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch questioned the Justice Department’s representative about how the government’s worries about China’s manipulation of content don’t classify the law as “content-based,” which would raise First Amendment concerns.

“It’s pretty challenging to avoid the term ‘content,’” Gorsuch remarked.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that the law relates to content but argued that First Amendment issues arise only if Congress attempts to discriminate against certain topics or viewpoints.

“In this case, Congress aims to remove the People’s Republic of China from the discussion completely while allowing all the same speech to occur on the platform,” Prelogar stated.

She also highlighted that the law has significant bipartisan backing, which is not always true for such legislation.

−Maureen Groppe

Roberts questions whether TikTok is fueling division among Americans

Chief Justice John Roberts queried if the government was implying that “ByteDance is using TikTok to incite arguments among Americans?”

“If that is the case, they seem to be succeeding,” Roberts quipped, eliciting laughter from those present.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded that this could indeed be the case.

“China, as a foreign adversary, seeks every opportunity to destabilize the United States and poses a national security threat,” Prelogar explained. “If it controls this essential communications platform, it becomes difficult to predict how it might leverage this to harm our interests.”

−Bart Jansen

Government asserts China’s disclosure is insufficient

Justice Neil Gorsuch challenged the government on why it believes that requiring TikTok to inform users about potential content manipulation by China wouldn’t alleviate their concerns.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that a “generic disclosure” would not sufficiently alert users when manipulations occur.

Does that mean an everyday American wouldn’t understand that cat videos might also be influenced by China, Gorsuch inquired.

Prelogar responded by likening this situation to a store warning customers that one out of a million products might cause cancer.

“That wouldn’t effectively let you know which specific product could harm your health,” she commented.

−Maureen Groppe

Alito questions if TikTok’s unique algorithm can be replicated

Justice Samuel Alito inquired if another company could easily replace TikTok should it become unavailable, given the app’s lucrative market.

“I’m curious if this is akin to someone’s bond with an old article of clothing,” Alito expressed. “Is there a reason to believe that only ByteDance has created this special algorithm?”

Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok creators, argued that they have attempted to create content on alternative platforms but found them to be significantly lacking.

“It has been evident that other companies have been trying for years to emulate TikTok and have had little success,” Fisher asserted.

−Bart Jansen

Justice Department labels TikTok as a serious danger

The lawyers representing TikTok and its creators have finished their statements. It is now the Justice Department’s opportunity to present its case.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar commenced her argument by declaring that TikTok represents a “grave threat” to national security from the People’s Republic of China.

“Everyone agrees that the PRC aims to undermine U.S. interests by gathering extensive amounts of data related to sensitive information about American citizens and participating in secret influence activities,” she noted.

Prelogar recognized that many Americans love sharing their thoughts on the platform, asserting that the legislation specifically targets the risk by mandating TikTok to sever its connections with China.

“Congress is not prevented by the First Amendment from taking this crucial and focused action to safeguard our national security,” she explained.

−Maureen Groppe

Potential for TikTok creators to prevail, suggests attorney

Justice Amy Coney Barrett inquired if there could be a scenario where TikTok creators might succeed in their case—due to their apprehensions regarding their content-sharing platform—even if the company itself were to lose.

Lawyer Jeffrey Fisher, representing the creators, responded that victory is possible because the main feature of the platform involves the millions of daily video uploads. He highlighted that the court has acknowledged the right of American audiences to receive information from designated sources.

“I think it’s a possibility,” joked Jeffrey Fisher, eliciting laughter in the courtroom. “Though I wouldn’t count on it.”

−Bart Jansen

Gorsuch expresses concerns over classified information use by the government

Justice Neil Gorsuch raised a concern regarding the potential reliance on classified information by the Justice Department in their arguments regarding national security risks.

Since the information is classified, TikTok is unable to review it to mount a defense.

This issue arose during the appeals court’s deliberation of the case; however, when they sided with the government, they stated they did not depend on the classified materials.

−Maureen Groppe

Uncertainty over Trump’s ability to extend TikTok deadline after taking office

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the new administration could postpone the January 19 deadline upon Donald Trump’s return to office, even if the Supreme Court ruled against TikTok.

“Is that a possibility under the law?” asked Gorsuch of Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok’s content creators.

Fisher admitted he wasn’t certain and suggested that Gorsuch direct his question to the Justice Department’s counsel, who would follow him.

Gorsuch indicated his intention to do so.

−Maureen Groppe

Lawyer claims TikTok retains user data even if it shuts down

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered if lawmakers could differentiate parts of the law that address data collection security issues from those requiring TikTok to reveal its algorithm.

Jeffrey Fisher criticized the law, arguing that if its aim is to stop data sharing, it’s flawed.

If TikTok were to shut down, “the company would still retain all user data,” Fisher noted. “Evaluating this law strictly from a data security perspective is peculiar. Congress might need to revise it.”

−Bart Jansen

What implications would a TikTok ban have for users?

A ban on TikTok would not result in the app disappearing from the phones of existing users on January 19.

New users in the U.S. would likely find the app unavailable for download from app stores, and it would become inaccessible via web browsers. Current users would be unable to get software or security updates, leading the app to potentially become unusable over time.

However, users may find some ways to bypass the ban. Creators on the platform have shared videos explaining how to use a VPN (virtual private network) to mask their location and access TikTok.

−Bailey Schulz

Thomas questions adverse effects of law on TikTok users

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned how the legislation negatively affects the free speech rights of TikTok users.

“It doesn’t specifically target creators or users; it’s mainly concerned with ownership and fears about how data could be manipulated or other security risks associated with non-citizens,” Thomas pointed out.

Lawyer Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok’s creators, argued that the law controls their text, images, real-time interactions, and videos. He stated that Congress should not dictate the ownership of platforms and suggested that they shouldn’t be able to force a closure of X (formerly Twitter) in the event of a change in ownership.

“American creators should have the freedom to engage with the publishers they prefer,” Fisher emphasized.

−Bart Jansen

Listen live: Supreme Court hearings on the TikTok ban case

You can listen to today’s Supreme Court arguments through their official website.

The session is set for two hours but may extend beyond that.

−Maureen Groppe

Attorney for TikTok creators: ’Simple ideas aren’t a national security concern’

The attorney representing TikTok creators began by expressing to the justices that these creatives have the right to choose their publishing platform.

According to Jeffrey Fisher, Americans traditionally have the freedom to collaborate with international publishers, and he referred to TikTok as the most active speech platform in the country.

He contended that the government’s fears of covert Chinese influence over content aren’t sufficient to negate First Amendment protections.

“Simply having ideas does not equate to a national security risk,” stated Fisher, arguing that curtailing speech simply due to the potential for it to create mistrust in U.S. leaders or undermine democracy is “the type of behavior we associate with our adversaries, not with our values as a nation.”

“That’s not how we operate here,” he concluded.

−Maureen Groppe

Kavanaugh: Large Issues Surrounding TikTok Data Sharing

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed that both Congress and the president are worried about China potentially gathering data on Americans over time, which could lead to the creation of spies or future blackmail threats.

“Is that not a realistic view held by Congress and the president regarding the potential dangers involved?” Kavanaugh questioned.

Noel Francisco, an attorney for TikTok, mentioned that the platform’s data is secured on Oracle servers located in Virginia. He argued that the legislation should be overturned or at least paused because Congress overlooked alternatives like imposing “significant penalties,” such as fining or imprisoning TikTok employees for exposing data.

“I’m not denying the risks,” Francisco responded. “I fully recognize the risks, but I believe there are numerous reasons that the law cannot be justified by that risk alone.”

Kavanaugh indicated that worries persist. “That appears to be a significant issue for the future of our country,” Kavanaugh noted.

−Bart Jansen

TikTok on January 19: ‘Basically, the platform will cease to exist’

When Justice Brett Kavanaugh inquired about what would unfold on January 19 if the law remains in effect, TikTok’s lawyer stated that the platform would shut down. “As I understand it, we will go offline; essentially, the platform will cease to exist,” Noel Francisco explained.

He added that after President-elect Trump takes office on January 20, “we could be facing a different reality.”

Trump claimed he believes he can discover other methods to address the national security issues without violating the First Amendment rights.

According to Francisco, the Supreme Court should at least suspend the law temporarily to “allow everyone some time to regroup.”

−Maureen Groppe

Roberts Queries for Previous Case to Support TikTok’s Argument

Chief Justice John Roberts challenged TikTok’s stance that the government’s interference in the company’s ownership violates the speech rights of others.

He requested TikTok’s lawyer to cite a previous case in which the regulation of a corporate structure was deemed a First Amendment infringement.

Francisco admitted he didn’t have a specific case readily available. However, he emphasized that government intervention saying “you must stop communicating unless someone else acts” directly influences the company’s expression.

−Maureen Groppe

Kagan: Does the Law Only Target a Foreign Entity?

Justice Elana Kagan questioned TikTok on why the law predominantly impacts TikTok instead of its parent company ByteDance, which lacks First Amendment protections.

Kagan asserted that TikTok could still seek the best algorithm available even if it separates from ByteDance.

The lawyer for TikTok argued that the implications for the American entity are significant and not incidental. The company would be unable to function in ten days unless sold.

Francisco also contended that ByteDance has First Amendment rights while operating in the U.S., similar to TikTok and its users.

−Maureen Groppe

Justice Barrett: Congress Worries About China Manipulating TikTok Messages

Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that TikTok’s examples of free speech pertain to the freedom to support China. She indicated that the real issue lies in the concealed manipulation of those messages.

“Many of your examples concern… the rights of an American citizen to repeat a foreign entity’s statements or declare their allegiance to China. The real concern revolves around the covert manipulation of algorithms. ByteDance is certainly eager to express that, right?” Barrett mentioned.

Noel Francisco, the TikTok lawyer, insisted that it is ultimately TikTok’s choice regarding the content on the platform and denied any intention to promote Chinese propaganda.

“We totally oppose any form of content manipulation by China,” Francisco asserted.

−Bart Jansen

Is China in Control of TikTok? ‘Someone has to be right.’

Justice Neil Gorsuch stated there is a discrepancy between the government’s and TikTok’s views concerning how much China controls the company, asking for clarification of the evidence.

“Someone has to be correct,” he noted.

Francisco explained that TikTok is capable of opting out of ByteDance’s algorithm, although doing so may not be a good business choice.

He asserted that if TikTok faces coercion from China to engage in negative actions, the company could shut down. This situation emphasizes TikTok, as an American company, being entitled to First Amendment rights, according to Francisco.

−Maureen Groppe

TikTok Lawyer Claims U.S. History of Restricting Foreign Media Control Is Irrelevant

Justice Brett Kavanaugh inquired if the justices should consider the historical precedent of preventing foreign control over media, which had been previously noted by an appeals court judge in favor of the government.

Francisco argued that this aspect is irrelevant in the current situation as earlier restrictions were associated with the limited availability of broadcasting licenses. He stated there is no scarcity on the internet.

−Maureen Groppe

Thomas: What Constitutes TikTok’s Speech?

This case partially hinges on whether TikTok has the First Amendment privilege to continue operating, prompting Justice Clarence Thomas to ask, “What exactly is TikTok’s expression here?”

Thomas queried why a restriction on ByteDance, the Chinese company, would impose a limit on TikTok.

Noel Francisco, representing TikTok, asserted that it is the algorithm that determines the optimal content mix for its users. He highlighted that losing the ByteDance algorithm through a potential sale would hinder the app’s capacity to serve its audience.

“This would be a direct infringement on TikTok’s expression,” Francisco noted.

–Bart Jansen

Young individuals reflect on a world without TikTok

This morning, Nora Miller, 20, and a group of students from Drake University made their way to the Supreme Court, eager to witness a significant event in history. Miller noted that this legal case has sparked ongoing discussions among her peers.

However, her classmate Olivia Swaney expressed uncertainty about the potential TikTok ban, set for January 19, feeling it’s hard to believe it might actually happen.

“This is the first time we’re experiencing serious regulations on social media,” Swaney mentioned. “It’s strange yet real to think we have a Supreme Court case regarding an app where we enjoy watching cat videos.”

Miller and Swaney agreed that if the ban is enforced, they would probably turn to Instagram more, as they find its algorithms quite similar. In contrast, 21-year-old Eli Benson indicated that he might cut back on social media altogether if TikTok is banned. “Maybe this is a sign for me to step back,” Benson said. “I wouldn’t mind having less social media in my life.”

−Karissa Waddick

Trump vows to ‘preserve TikTok’ after initially seeking a ban

President-elect Donald Trump asserts that he can “preserve” TikTok and is urging the Supreme Court to delay any laws that could end the platform’s existence in the U.S., marking a departure from his earlier desire to shut it down during his first term.

Last year, Congress approved a ban on TikTok effective January 19 unless it separates from ByteDance, its parent company from China, due to concerns regarding national security and the potential collection of American user data.

This position mirrors Trump’s actions from 2020 when he mandated that ByteDance divest its U.S. operations within 90 days through an executive order. That order faced legal challenges and never materialized.

Since then, Trump has garnered 14.7 million followers on TikTok and launched his own platform, Truth Social. In his 2024 campaign, he promoted the idea that he could “save TikTok.”

Trump mentioned to the Supreme Court that voters have given him a mandate to safeguard their rights to free speech.

−Bart Jansen

Key arguments in a critical free speech issue

The attorney for TikTok began by stating that one of the most popular platforms for speech in the U.S. could shut down within nine days without the Court’s intervention.

TikTok’s ban, argued Noel Francisco, would infringe upon the free speech rights of both the company and its users.

The law passed by Congress unfairly targets the platform, subjecting it to “excessively severe treatment” driven by government fears about potential future issues.

He proposed that there are more effective methods to alleviate those worries.

−Maureen Groppe

Students challenge national security claims central to the debate

Monica Vasquez, 21, gathered with friends and fellow students from a University of California program in Washington, D.C., to keep warm while awaiting entry into the Supreme Court.

As a political science student, Vasquez was fascinated by the case’s pivotal questions regarding whether banning the video app would violate First Amendment rights related to free speech.

She noted that, similar to many of her peers, she mainly gets her news through the social media app and does not share the national security fears expressed by others. “People say, ‘They’re stealing our data.’ I respond, ‘Everyone’s stealing my data.’ It’s absurd to ban an entire app just because it’s operated by a Chinese company,” she remarked.

−Karissa Waddick

Will confidential data be considered in the arguments?

Some of the evidence the government must present to demonstrate that TikTok poses a “serious” national security risk cannot be disclosed publicly since it contains classified information.

The judges from the appeals court who sided with the government clarified that they did not make their decision based on the classified data underlying the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Lawyers representing TikTok requested that the Supreme Court disregard the classified materials as they were not included in the case they are reviewing.

−Maureen Groppe

TikTok users and small business owners fear the app’s demise

Callie Goodwin traveled from South Carolina alongside her friend and fellow TikTok creator Sarah Baus to observe the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Friday. Goodwin, 30, and Baus, 27, both rely heavily on TikTok for their incomes.

Goodwin, who runs a small greeting card and personalized gift company called Sparks Of Joy Co, shared that up to 98% of her revenue comes from customers finding her through TikTok. She mentioned that during a busy holiday shopping period, she made over $30,000 in sales on the app within just nine days.

“Losing TikTok would put my business at serious risk,” Goodwin told YSL News as she queued on Friday morning. She believes that TikTok’s unique algorithm allows small businesses like hers to thrive in ways that platforms like Facebook and Instagram do not. “We have 115,000 followers on TikTok compared to less than 3,000 combined on Instagram and Facebook. Losing that entire community and customer base would be devastating to my business,” she explained.

−Karissa Waddick

TikTok is becoming an increasingly important news source for Americans

The discussions surrounding TikTok arise as its usage as a news resource has expanded significantly.

According to the Pew Research Center, around 40% of young adults in the U.S. regularly get their news from the app.

No other social media platform has experienced as rapid an increase in users who turn to it for news as TikTok.

−Maureen Groppe

Creators hope Trump will keep his promise to ‘preserve TikTok’

In a recent legal submission, President-elect Donald Trump called on the Supreme Court to halt the pending ban. He indicated that once he assumes office on January 20, he would work to address the national security issues concerning TikTok without compromising users’ access.

If the court fails to act, Trump might instruct his attorney general to disregard the ban. However, the concern lies in whether major platforms like Apple and Google will consider that sufficient protection against the law’s severe penalties.

−Maureen Groppe

More: Can Trump save TikTok? The ‘Art of the Deal’ President aims to find out.

TikTok is the only choice for some creators, excluding Reels and YouTube

Approximately 70 people braved the 20-degree temperatures outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning to attend oral arguments. Most were bundled up in scarves, hats, and hoods — some wrapped in blankets, while one individual opted for ski goggles.

Ashley Wilson, 30, showed up at the Court the previous night around 7:30 p.m. to secure her place in line. Other than two quick breaks at her nearby apartment in Chinatown, D.C., she had been waiting for over 12 hours.

During the day, Wilson practices law, but she also manages a TikTok channel where she streams court cases and discusses legal issues. Despite the frigid weather, she was live-streaming her experience and explaining the case details to her audience.

“I’m genuinely approaching this with an open mind,” she shared. “I’m prepared to listen to the evidence, should there be any demonstrating threats. I’m uncertain if we’ve seen any solid evidence of national security risks so far, but I’m eager to hear it.”

If the court endorses the planned TikTok ban, Wilson mentioned she may choose a new hobby instead of moving her content to another platform like Instagram Reels or YouTube.

−Karissa Waddick

When will the Supreme Court rule on TikTok?

The court is hastily addressing the case due to a looming January 19 deadline for TikTok to separate from its parent company, ByteDance.

A swift decision could be made on whether to at least delay the deadline while the justices consider if they will maintain the law.

Although this wouldn’t be a conclusive ruling, it would provide a strong insight into the court’s likely stance.

Who is presenting arguments before the Supreme Court?

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the chief Supreme Court attorney for the Biden administration, is tackling one last significant case before the next administration takes over.

Prelogar will argue against Noel Francisco, who served as Donald Trump’s solicitor general during his first term and is now representing TikTok.

In addition, Jeffrey Fisher, a partner at O’Melveny & Myers with extensive court experience, represents TikTok creators.

What legal question is the court addressing?

The justices are examining whether mandating TikTok’s separation from ByteDance violates the First Amendment rights of Americans regarding free speech.

If it is found to infringe upon these rights, the government must present valid justifications for such action and demonstrate that the law is specifically designed to meet that objective.

The level of difficulty the government faces in proving this will rely on the justices’ perception of the extent to which the law governs speech.

What was the ruling by the lower court?

A panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously supported the law.

Judge Douglas Ginsburg noted that the law was “meticulously designed” and forms part of a broader strategy to address a significant national security risk emanating from China.

Two of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents — Trump and Ronald Reagan — while the third was appointed by Democrat Barack Obama.

What law is TikTok contesting?

Last year, Congress enacted the legislation.

Faced with significant bipartisan pressure, President Joe Biden enacted the law.

TikTok suggested alternative solutions to alleviate the government’s worries without having to sell the platform.

However, the Biden administration determined that certain user data from the U.S. would still be transmitted to China, and that ByteDance would maintain oversight over TikTok’s U.S. operations. The administration also expressed skepticism regarding ByteDance’s willingness to genuinely follow through with agreements and believed that the U.S. would not have enough capability to effectively monitor compliance.