Authored By: Nadine Hesham
Ain Shames
TikTok Inc. v. Garland
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (2024)
Nos. 24–656 and 24–657
Decided in [January 17, 2025]
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/604/24-656/case.pdf accessed [20 March 2025]
Introduction
Parties involves
Petitioners: TikTok Inc and ByteDance parent company that owns TikTok and there are millions of users in the US
Respondent: Merrick Garland as he is the attorney representing unitedstates government which enacted legislation regarding TikTok due national security concerns.
Nature of the case
This is a constitutional law case focusing on rights, national security and corporate regulations. TikTok sued US due to national wide ban. The legal dispute around free speech protection under the first amendment and government’s national security.
Procedural history
The congress passed a law in 2024, compelling ByteDance to sell TikTok US assets within 270 days or total ban Tiktok make petition in the D.C circuit based on unconstitutionality of law the court denied the petitions, holding that the act does not violate First Amendment and giving supremacy to national security and facing Chinese government’s usage of collected data.
They appealed to the Supreme court the supreme court uphold the constitutionality of the law due to protecting national security and government’s data protection goals.
Facts
It started by executive order gave by president trump towards TikTok operating entities in August 2020 to ban form the US, the congress passed a law in 2024 order to ban TikTok application or selling assets in US within 270 days as it is threatening the national security and economy of the united states as the information took by the application used by Chinese government .TikTok Inc. ask for non- constitutionality of law as it violates first amendment the DC court hold it a constitutional law and not violating first amendment which is constitutional protection of freedoms as freedom of speech, freedom of press the right to publish freely on social media without government interference whether opinions or news, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly which is right to gather peacefully for protests meetings or demonstrations and right to petition the government the citizens have the right to examine the laws or government actions without any abuse from different authorities the meant violation here is the freedom of speech and harming tiktok’s business interests in US ,this law reflects government’s new vision for protecting US citizen’s private data and national security.
Legal issues
The legal question here is the law passed by congress for Tiktok Company violate the first amendment specially the freedom of speech as TikTok application of for expression. This issue arises because the petition submitted to the DC court about the law have been rejected ByteDance negotiated with executive branch to develop a national security agreement that would resolve those concerns but these negotiations with no avail.
The case question is if the executive branch have the power to force ByteDance to sell there assets in U.S or to ban it and if they have the power such actions does not violate the commercial laws in U.S
Secondary issue
Whether the data collected by TikTok actually risks the United States security and what are the national security being harm by these data in other words TikTok ask for justification regard national security gave or protected by the constitution.
If this ban going to harm millions of content creators and business owners and there usage of the app for marketing campaign.
The case explore U.S‘s government discrimination as this law only focus only on TikTok specially and not any other platforms as this is unlawful discrimination.
Arguments:
Petitioners: Harming commercial interests in US with sudden ban or force to sell.
Violating on of constitutional laws which is the freedom of speech as ban of tiktok will result in silence of millions creators and users without strong justification Unfairly targeting one platform as the law come out to single application while the other social media platform collecting the same data.
Lack of evidence that ByteDance give Chinese government the collected data
Respondent: Main issue which violating one of the protected rights which is the freedom of speech law does not targeting content or users but regulating business operation concern tiktok due to government national security interests.
Regard the claim of threating the national security it’s based on China national law of intelligence law that the government have the right to ask for data collected of any company upon request.
National security evidence is if tiktok refuse to give users data they have potential of abuse with influence campaigns and harming the younger generations to turn them addicts for the application which lead to depression and sleep disturbance actually the government no in need to prove actual harm only reflect the credible risk that justify the same actions took against Huawei and ZTE.
Concern the issue of discrimination the respondent regret it by holding that it have been distinct between freedom of speech laws and the foreigner enemy owning communications platform the difference was the law is focusing on foreign government’s relationship united states which the congress specifies and the committee of foreign investment in US have the right to block any foreign company owned by foreigner outside and operating US due to any risks they have examined. There is no suppression of speech but it is essential major for US national security and the same thing regard economic claim economic harm is not a constitutional issue and not over the national security threats.
Court’s analysis
Legal reasoning: first the freedom of speech is always protected by law and the right of freedom flow of ideas speech and ideas will always be granted unless it is include hate speech the authority have the right to prevent it .
Second supreme court declines the secret evidence that gave to the court without petition’s knowledge this is no acceptable by law or constitution putting secret evidence give very dangerous constitutional concerns as evidence should be published to the public the evidences submitted by government should be examined by the court to it is reality but in front supreme court none of their business this secret evidence.
Third court persuaded that the law in front of him is seeking for protecting national interests by preventing foreign country have announced by the congress and the president as an adversary there nation millions of users are using the application by using the app the tiktok collect all data users that he accepted as polices of app but the app itself access user’s private data as photos according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, TikTok can access any data stored in user’s contact list including names photos and other personal information about unconsenting third parties the record shows that the People’s Republic of China can require ByteDance (TikTok’s parent company) to cooperate with government to obtain personal data and Chinese people can use the data for blackmail
Relevant law: Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications
Interpretation: Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications with applying first amendment it have been interpreted as national security above and more important than right of speech.
Decision:
Court agree that petition survives petitioners First Amendment challenge which is mean that law is constitutional and does not violate first amendment. Up till now tiktok is going in negation with the executive authority. The Internet Society has repeatedly warned that banning online services can be dangerous global impact. It’s a counterproductive global trend that threatens national security economies and personal safety. The aims of such bans can often be accomplished national security problems as harming population mental health and this a great problem because any country there wealth of any country in economy called human capital it is one of resources or main asset of any country due to tiktok design lead to non stop scrolling , personality disorders self harm suicide thoughts and sleep problems.
Subsequent development: Tiktok Company must terminate operations in the US by January 19 2025 if not retailed to a new owner.
Significance:
Impact law: loss of business opportunities absence of TikTok could force businesses to potentially reducing visibility and revenue streams of other platforms U.S. Businesses heavily integrated with TikTok could happen decreasing in sales. Some economists argue that banning TikTok will discourage foreign investment and fuel more tensions between the U.S. and China impacting broader trade relations also can affect the economic growth and employment across the region. TikTok’s economy impact in Germany France Italy the Netherlands and Belgium reveal that the platform contributes significantly to their economies in 2023 small to medium businesses using TikTok generated 3.5 billion euros in revenue. TikTok supported over 51,100 jobs, with Germany alone accounting for 18,600 jobs TikTok ban if happen in Europe the economic influences would be severe.
Precedent:
See R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382–386 (1992)
Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927)
Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 496 (1959).
Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman
S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 111 (1948)
Conclusion:
The first country try to protect their national security or in exact way there citizen’s personal data and from my own perspective their mental health the national security was the first and main reason for tiktok banning. TikTok tries to plea this by telling that banning will violate one of the constitutional protected interests of freedom.
Reference(S):
https://globaledge.msu.edu/blog/post/58469/experts-say-banning-tiktok-will-impact-multiple-economies
