TikTok, Inc. v. Garland

Last updated
TikTok v. Garland
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case name TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance Ltd. v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Docket nos. 24-656
24-657
Questions presented
Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland is a lawsuit brought by social media company TikTok against the United States government. Chinese internet technology company ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiary TikTok, Inc. claim that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article One, Section Nine, and the Due Process Clause and Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [1] [2] [3] The law bans or requires divestment of social media apps meeting specified criteria that are owned by foreign corporations from, or by corporations owned by foreign nationals from, countries designated as U.S. foreign adversaries and that have been determined by the President to present a significant national security threat, and explicitly defines TikTok and any application operated by a ByteDance subsidiary as a "foreign adversary controlled application" under the law. [4]

Contents

On December 6, 2024, a panel of judges on the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the company's claims about the constitutionality of the law and upheld it. [5] [6] [7] After the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the company's request for an injunction on December 13 against the law's ban until a full review is conducted by the U.S. Supreme Court, [8] [9] TikTok appealed the injunction decision to the Supreme Court on December 16. [10] [11] On December 18, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the First Amendment claims for the case and scheduled oral arguments for January 10. [12] It was consolidated for consideration with Firebaugh v. Garland, a lawsuit filed by TikTok content creators against the law. [13] [14]

Background

President Joe Biden signed PAFACA into law on April 24, 2024, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 9901. [15] It potentially bans apps made by any "covered company controlled by a foreign adversary and determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States" unless exempted through qualified divestment. [15] The law gives TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, 270 days to sell TikTok. If ByteDance fails to do so, TikTok will face a ban from U.S. app stores and internet hosting services, limiting new downloads and access to its content. The deadline for the sale is January 19, 2025, but Biden can extend it by another 90 days if progress is made, potentially giving TikTok up to a year before a ban is enforced. [16]

Lawsuit

On May 7, 2024, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the legislation primarily on First Amendment grounds, alleging that the forced divestiture or ban of the platform would violate the free speech rights of the company and its users. The company accused the U.S. government of operating on "hypothetical" national security concerns, contending that it has not outlined any credible security threat posed by the platform in an adequate manner, and has not explained why TikTok "should be excluded from evaluation under the standards Congress concurrently imposed on every other platform." [17] [18] [19] The lawsuit also alleged that the Chinese government would not permit ByteDance to include the algorithm that has been the "key to the success of TikTok in the United States." [20]

Proceedings

DC Circuit Court of Appeals

In the lawsuit, TikTok requested a declaratory judgment to prevent the PAFACA from being enforced. [21] The Court of Appeals expedited the case, setting oral arguments for September 2024, [22] and a decision by December 2024. [23] In June 2024, TikTok presented briefs to the court that laid out why the company believes the ban to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. [24] TikTok argued any divestiture or separation would take years and the law runs afoul of Americans' free speech rights. [24] The brief included a 90-page proposal about plans by TikTok to address American national security concerns. [25] The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) responded the following month, in which it asked the court to reject TikTok's legal challenge. [26] The DoJ argued the law is aimed at addressing national security concerns, not speech, and is aimed at China's ability to exploit TikTok to access Americans’ sensitive personal information. [26] The DOJ alleged that ByteDance employees in China obtained sensitive information on U.S. users, such as views on abortion, religion, and gun control, from overseas TikTok employees through Lark. [27] In August and September, 2024, DOJ filed classified documents with the court to outline additional security concerns regarding ByteDance's ownership of TikTok. [26] [28]

Oral arguments were held on September 16, 2024. [28] On December 6, 2024, the Court of Appeals rejected TikTok's constitutional arguments and found that the law does not "contravene the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," nor does it "violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws." [29] "The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States," Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote in the court's majority opinion. "Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary's ability to gather data on people in the United States." [30] While the majority opinion concluded that the law triggered heightened scrutiny, it did not decide whether strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny should apply but concluded that the law satisfied the strict scrutiny standard, while the concurring opinion in the case filed by Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan concluded that the law only needed to satisfy intermediate scrutiny and that the law satisfied the lower standard. [31] [32] [33] [34]

However, because the government referenced content on TikTok in its justification for the law, [32] [35] [36] the majority opinion concluded that the law could still trigger strict scrutiny. [31] The government cited two national security concerns as justifications for the law: "(1) to counter the PRC's efforts to collect great quantities of data about tens of millions of Americans; and (2) to limit the PRC's ability to manipulate content covertly on the TikTok platform". [37] The majority opinion concluded that these justifications were compelling government interests, and deferred to the government's evaluations of factual circumstances and predictions that TikTok would likely comply with PRC requests to manipulate content on the platform. [37] After concluding that the law was facially content-neutral, the majority opinion concluded that any new owner of TikTok "could circulate the same mix of content as before without running afoul of the [PAFACAA]", and that the government's concern was about "covert content manipulation" due to its control by a foreign adversary country rather than "content suppression"–which was how the company had characterized the government's position. [37] [35]

The majority opinion concluded that the TikTok-specific provisions of the law were narrowly tailored to achieving the government's national security concerns, [35] and that it would be inappropriate for the court to "reject the Government's risk assessment and override its ultimate judgment" that a national security agreement that the company proposed to the government was less effective than the law's ban-or-divestment requirement. [37] [4] The concurring opinion also concluded that the law did not violate the First Amendment, but asserted that the law only needed to satisfy intermediate scrutiny due to its content-neutrality and due to the history of restrictions on foreign control of broadcast media in the United States. [37] [38] [39] [34] With respect to TikTok's equal protection claims under the Due Process Clause, the DC Circuit concluded that the company's claims "boil[ed] down to pointing out that TikTok alone is singled out by name in the [PAFACAA]" but that the differential treatment was justified by the "TikTok-specific national security harms identified and substantiated by the Government." [40] [38] [41]

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005), [42] the DC Circuit rejected TikTok's assertion that the PAFACAA constituted a per se regulatory taking under the Takings Clause because TikTok can pursue a qualified divestment under the law and thus would not be deprived of all economic use of TikTok, [43] while the DC Circuit also concluded that the difficulties related to a divestment asserted by the company are instead caused by PRC export regulations rather than the PAFACAA. [44] [45] Following the framework established in Nixon v. General Services Administration (1977), [46] [47] the DC Circuit also concluded that the PAFACAA did not qualify as a bill of attainder because while the court concluded that the law applies with specificity, the court also concluded that it does not constitute a legislative punishment because the law's divestment requirement is "a sale, not a confiscation", is more analogous to a line of business restriction rather than an employment ban, serves a non-punitive and preventive national security purpose, and that "TikTok [did] not come close to satisfying [the] requirement" of demonstrating that the legislative record shows a congressional intent to punish by passing the law. [48]

On December 9, TikTok and ByteDance filed a motion for an injunction in the case to allow the app to continue operating until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear an appeal of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruling. [8] The appellate court rejected the motion on December 13. [9] On the same day, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party sent letters in reference to the December 6 ruling to the chief executive officers of Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc. to instruct the companies to be prepared to comply with the law by the January 19 deadline. [49]

Supreme Court

On December 16, TikTok appealed the injunction decision to the Supreme Court. [10] [11] On December 18, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case and scheduled oral arguments for January 10, 2025. [13] [14] The court limited the scope of its review to the legal issue of PAFACA's constitutionality under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. [50] One "sign of the significance of the issue" was that the court moved with "extraordinary speed". [50] The court took only two days to respond to TikTok's application, did not follow its customary practice of waiting for the government to respond, and immediately set oral argument for a special hearing (normally, oral argument is set only after the parties have filed their briefing on the merits of an appeal). [50]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span>

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. The right of free speech can, however, be lawfully restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is an inter-agency committee in the United States government that reviews the national security implications of foreign investments in the U.S. economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Emergency Economic Powers Act</span> United States federal law

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted October 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States. The act was signed by President Jimmy Carter on December 28, 1977.

Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review and strict scrutiny.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ByteDance</span> Chinese internet technology company

ByteDance Ltd. is a Chinese internet technology company headquartered in Haidian, Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">TikTok</span> Video-focused social media platform

TikTok, whose mainland Chinese and Hong Kong counterpart is Douyin, is a short-form video hosting service owned by Chinese internet company ByteDance. It hosts user-submitted videos, which can range in duration from three seconds to 60 minutes. It can be accessed with a smart phone app or the web.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carl J. Nichols</span> American judge (born 1970)

Carl John Nichols is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zhang Yiming</span> Chinese internet entrepreneur (born 1983)

Zhang Yiming is a Chinese Internet entrepreneur. He founded ByteDance in 2012, developed the news aggregator Toutiao and the video sharing platform Douyin. Zhang is one of the richest individuals in the world, with an estimated net worth of US$45.6 billion as of October 2024, according to Forbes and US$43.1 billion according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index. On November 4, 2021, Zhang stepped down as CEO of ByteDance, completing a leadership handover announced in May 2021. According to Reuters, Zhang maintains over 50 percent of ByteDance's voting rights. The surging global popularity of TikTok made Zhang the richest man in China in 2024.

<i>U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump</i> Lawsuit between U.S. WeChat Users Alliance and President Donald J. Trump

U.S. WeChat Users Alliance (USWUA) v. Trump was a court case pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction on September 20, 2020, blocking the Trump administration's ban order against WeChat based on concerns raised about harm to First Amendment rights and the hardships imposed on a minority community using the app as a primary means of communication. The lawsuit was dismissed in July 2021, following the Biden Administration's rescission of the executive order.

<i>TikTok v. Trump</i> Lawsuit between TikTok and Donald Trump

TikTok v. Trump was a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia filed in September 2020 by TikTok as a challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order of August 6, 2020. The order prohibited the usage of TikTok in five stages, the first being the prohibition of downloading the application. On September 27, 2020, a preliminary injunction was issued by Judge Carl J. Nichols blocking enforcement of that executive order. The lawsuit, by then captioned TikTok v. Biden, was dismissed in July 2021, following the Biden Administration's rescission of the executive order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Censorship of TikTok</span> Restriction of access to TikTok by governments and organizations

Many countries have imposed past or ongoing restrictions on the video sharing social network TikTok. Bans from government devices usually stem from national security concerns over potential access of data by the Chinese government. Other bans have cited children's well-being and offensive content such as pornography.

There are reports of TikTok censoring political content related to China and other countries as well as content from minority creators. TikTok says that its initial content moderation policies, many of which are no longer applicable, were aimed at reducing divisiveness and were not politically motivated.

In 2020, the United States government announced that it was considering banning the Chinese social media platform TikTok upon a request from then-president Donald Trump, who viewed the app as a national security threat. The result was that TikTok owner ByteDance—which initially planned on selling a small portion of TikTok to an American company—agreed to divest TikTok to prevent a ban in the United States and in other countries where restrictions are also being considered due to privacy concerns, which themselves are mostly related to its ownership by a firm based in China.

NetChoice is a trade association of online businesses that advocates for free expression and free enterprise on the internet. It currently has six active First Amendment lawsuits over state-level internet regulations, including NetChoice v. Paxton, Moody v. NetChoice, NetChoice v. Bonta and NetChoice v. Yost.

TikTok has sparked concerns over potential user data collection and influence operations by the Chinese government, leading to restrictions and bans in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">RESTRICT Act</span> Proposed US legislation

The RESTRICT Act is a proposed law that was first introduced in the United States Senate on March 7, 2023. Introduced by Senator Mark Warner, the Act proposed that the Secretary of Commerce be given the power to review business transactions involving certain information and communications technologies products or services when they are connected to a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and pose an "undue and unacceptable risk" to the national security of the United States or its citizens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act</span> United States legislation

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) is an act of Congress that was signed into law on April 24, 2024, as part of Public Law 118-50. It would ban social networking services within 270 to 360 days if they are determined by the president of the United States and relevant provisions to be a "foreign adversary controlled application"; the definition covers websites and application software, including mobile apps. The act explicitly applies to ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiaries—including TikTok—without the need for additional determination. It ceases to be applicable if the foreign adversary controlled application is divested and no longer considered to be controlled by a foreign adversary of the United States.

TikTok has been involved in a number of lawsuits since its founding, with a number of them relating to TikTok's data collection techniques.

<i>Anderson v. TikTok</i> 2024 United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals case

Anderson v. TikTok, 2:22-cv-01849,, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in which the court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230, does not bar claims against TikTok, a video-sharing social media platform, regarding TikTok's recommendations to users via its algorithm.

References

  1. ↑ CRS 2024b, p. 1.
  2. ↑ CRS 2024c, pp. 14–15.
  3. ↑ CRS 2024d, p. 1.
  4. 1 2 CRS 2024b, pp. 1–2.
  5. ↑ Maheshwari, Sapna (December 6, 2024). "TikTok Loses Bid to Overturn Law Forcing a Ban or Sale". The New York Times . Archived from the original on December 6, 2024. Retrieved December 6, 2024.
  6. ↑ Hadero, Haleluya (December 6, 2024). "Federal appeals court upholds law requiring sale or ban of TikTok in the US". Associated Press . Archived from the original on December 7, 2024. Retrieved December 6, 2024.
  7. ↑ Vanian, Jonathan; Mangan, Dan (December 6, 2024). "Appeals court upholds law ordering China-based ByteDance to sell TikTok or face U.S. ban". CNBC . Archived from the original on December 6, 2024. Retrieved December 6, 2024.
  8. 1 2 Mangan, Dan (December 9, 2024). "TikTok says ban would cost U.S. small businesses, creators $1.3 billion in first month". CNBC . Archived from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved December 9, 2024.
  9. 1 2 Haleluya, Hadero (2024-12-13). "Court denies TikTok's request to halt enforcement of potential US ban until Supreme Court review". Associated Press . Archived from the original on 2024-12-14. Retrieved 2024-12-14.
  10. 1 2 Sherman, Mark (2024-12-16). "TikTok asks the Supreme Court for an emergency order to block a US ban unless it's sold". Associated Press . Retrieved 2024-12-16.
  11. 1 2 Mangan, Dan (December 16, 2024). "Trump meets with TikTok CEO as company asks Supreme Court to block ban on app". CNBC . Archived from the original on December 16, 2024. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
  12. ↑ CRS 2024d, pp. 5–6.
  13. 1 2 Sherman, Mark (December 18, 2024). "Supreme Court will hear arguments over the law that could ban TikTok in the US if it's not sold". Associated Press . Retrieved December 18, 2024.
  14. 1 2 Mangan, Dan (December 18, 2024). "U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to TikTok ban". CNBC . Retrieved December 18, 2024.
  15. 1 2 "15 USC 9901: Prohibition on transfer of personally identifiable sensitive data of United States individuals to foreign adversaries". Office of the Law Revision Counsel . Retrieved 2024-10-26.
  16. ↑ Fung, Brian (April 24, 2024). "Biden just signed a potential TikTok ban into law. Here's what happens next". CNN . Retrieved October 26, 2024.
  17. ↑ Scott, Rachel; Pereira, Ivan (May 7, 2024). "TikTok sues federal government over potential US ban". ABC News . Archived from the original on July 28, 2024. Retrieved July 28, 2024.
  18. ↑ Shepardson, David (May 7, 2024). "TikTok, ByteDance sue to block US law seeking sale or ban of app". Reuters .
  19. ↑ "Read TikTok's legal challenge". The New York Times . 2024-05-07. ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2024-07-29. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  20. ↑ "TikTok sues US to block law that could ban the social media platform". Associated Press . 2024-05-07. Archived from the original on 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
  21. ↑ Gershman, Jacob; Bobrowsky, Meghan (May 7, 2024). "TikTok Sues to Block U.S. Ban" . The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on July 28, 2024. Retrieved May 28, 2024.
  22. ↑ Shepardson, David (May 28, 2024). "US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September". Reuters . Archived from the original on May 28, 2024. Retrieved May 28, 2024.
  23. ↑ del Valle, Gaby; Feiner, Lauren (September 14, 2024). "TikTok is about to get its day in court". The Verge . Archived from the original on September 14, 2024. Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  24. 1 2 Shepardson, David (June 20, 2024). "TikTok says US ban is inevitable without a court order blocking law". Reuters . Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  25. ↑ Maheshwari, Sapna (June 20, 2024). "TikTok Lays Out Past Efforts to Address U.S. Concerns". The New York Times . Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  26. 1 2 3 "TikTok's appeal should be thrown out, US justice department tells court". The Guardian . 2024-07-27. ISSN   0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2024-07-28. Retrieved 2024-07-28.
  27. ↑ "Justice Department says TikTok collected US user views on issues like abortion and gun control". Associated Press . 2024-07-27. Archived from the original on 2024-07-27. Retrieved 2024-07-28.
  28. 1 2 "TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, 24-1113". CourtListener . Archived from the original on 2024-10-09. Retrieved 2024-10-26.
  29. ↑ Duffy, Clare; Fung, Brian (December 6, 2024). "TikTok is one step closer to being banned in the US". CNN . Retrieved December 6, 2024.
  30. ↑ Lee, Wendy; Chang, Andrea (December 6, 2024). "TikTok lost a major legal bid to avoid a U.S. ban. Now what?". The Los Angeles Times . Retrieved December 6, 2024.
  31. 1 2 CRS 2024d, pp. 2–3.
  32. 1 2 CRS 2024a, pp. 3–4.
  33. ↑ CRS 2024b, pp. 5–6.
  34. 1 2 CRS 2024c, p. 22.
  35. 1 2 3 CRS 2024b, p. 5.
  36. ↑ CRS 2024c, pp. 21–22.
  37. 1 2 3 4 5 CRS 2024d, p. 3.
  38. 1 2 CRS 2024a, p. 4.
  39. ↑ CRS 2024b, p. 6.
  40. ↑ CRS 2024d, pp. 3–4.
  41. ↑ CRS 2024c, pp. 25–26.
  42. ↑ CRS 2024c, pp. 24–25.
  43. ↑ CRS 2024a, pp. 4–5.
  44. ↑ CRS 2024d, pp. 4–5.
  45. ↑ CRS 2024c, pp. 4–6.
  46. ↑ CRS 2024b, p. 4.
  47. ↑ CRS 2024c, pp. 23–24.
  48. ↑ CRS 2024d, p. 4.
  49. ↑ Vanian, Jonathan (December 13, 2024). "Apple and Google instructed by House committee to prepare to dump TikTok next month". CNBC . Retrieved December 17, 2024.
  50. 1 2 3 Marimow, Ann E.; Dou, Eva (December 18, 2024). "Supreme Court to hear challenge to banning TikTok in U.S." . The Washington Post . Archived from the original on 19 December 2024. Retrieved 19 December 2024.

Works cited

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.