ReutersTikTok will go before the US Supreme Court on Friday in a last-ditch effort to overturn a ban, in a case that tests the limits of national security and free speech.
The popular social media platform is defying a law passed last year ordering the firm to split from its Chinese owner or be banned from the US by January 19.
The US government is arguing that without a sale, TikTok could be used by China as a tool for espionage and political manipulation.
But TikTok rejects the claim, arguing that it has been unfairly targeted and the move violates the free speech rights of its roughly 170 million US users.
Lower courts have sided with the government, but the issue was complicated last month when President-elect Donald Trump weighed in on the dispute and asked for a stay on the law to give him time to reach a deal.
Analysts have said it was not clear what the Supreme Court would decide, but that reversing the previous ruling – even with the blessing of a future president – would be unusual.
“When you have a real governmental interest against a real constitutional value, it ends up being a very close case,” said Cardozo Law School professor Saurabh Vishnubhakat.
“But in cases this close, the government often gets the benefit of the doubt.”
A decision from the Supreme Court could be made within days.
Congress passed the anti-TikTok bill last year with support from both the Democratic and Republican parties. The moment marked the culmination of years of concern for the wildly popular platform, which is known for its viral videos and youth appeal.
The legislation does not ban use of the app, but would require tech giants like Apple and Google to stop offering it and prevent updates, which analysts suggest would destroy it over time.
TikTok is already banned by government devices in many countries, including the UK. It faces more complete bans in some countries, including India.
The US argues that TikTok is a “serious” threat because the Chinese government can force its owner, ByteDance, to hand over user data or manipulate what users show to serve Chinese interests.
Last December, a three-judge appeals court ruling upheld the law, noting China’s record of operating through private companies and saying the move was justified as “part of a broader effort to counter a well-founded national security threat” from the country.
TikTok has repeatedly denied any possible influence from the Chinese Communist Party and said the law violates its users’ First Amendment free speech rights.
It has asked the Supreme Court to strike down the law as unconstitutional, or order a stay of its implementation to enable a review of the legislation, which it said was based on “inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information”.
Trump will take office the day after the law goes into effect.
He had called for a ban on the app in the US during his first term, but changed his tune on the campaign trail.
The brief that Trump’s lawyers filed late last month did not take a position on the legal dispute, but said the case presents “unprecedented, new and difficult tension between free speech rights on the one hand and political concerns on the other.” foreign affairs and national security in other”.
Noting his election victory, he said Trump “opposes the TikTok ban” and “requires the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.”
The filing came less than two weeks after Trump met with the TikTok boss at Mar-a-Lago.
One of the president-elect’s major donors, Jeff Yass of Susequehanna International Group, is a major stakeholder in the company.
However, Trump’s nominee to serve as Secretary of State, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, is in favor of banning the platform.
Investors who have expressed interest in buying TikTok include former Trump Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and former LA Dodgers owner Frank McCourt.
Lawyer Peter Choharis, who is part of the Washington-based think tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which filed its brief in support of the US government’s case, said it was hard to predict what the court would do — e which has a conservative majority, noting that several recent court decisions have overturned longstanding precedent.
But he said that even if Trump was given the chance to try to strike a deal, he expected a ban eventually.
“I don’t see any president, including President-elect Trump, being able to resolve this in a way that is satisfactory to US national security, because I don’t think ByteDance is going to agree to it,” he said.
The prospect of TikTok’s loss in the US has prompted protests from many users, some of whom launched their own legal action last year.
In their filing, they said the decision that TikTok could be shut down “because the ideas on that platform might persuade Americans of one thing or another — even of something potentially harmful to our democracy — is completely inconsistent with the First Amendment. “.
Other groups weighing in on the dispute include the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which argued that the US had not presented “credible evidence of ongoing or imminent harm” caused by the social media app.
Choharis said the government had the right to take measures to protect itself, arguing that the fight was not “over speech” or “content”, but over the role of the Chinese government.
“It’s about control and how the Chinese Communist Party specifically, and the Chinese government in general, pursue strategic goals using many internet firms and especially social media companies — especially including TikTok,” he said.
